# What plane do you wish had sawservice



## Mosin (Mar 31, 2005)

This topic is abut the planes that were experimental and never saw action. You pick the top 3 that you would have liked to see in the fighting.Mine are the
XP60 WARHAWK a modified P-40 WARHAWK 
XF5U CORSAIR A modified F4U CORSAIR 
HEINKELL 100 a german fighter 
What are you picks?


----------



## toffigd (Mar 31, 2005)

Heinkel saw action!

Mine would be:
RWD-22 - recon torpedo-bomber 
PZL P.62 - single engine fighter 
PZL P.49 Mis (Bear) - medium bomber, modification of P.37b Los 

http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/ search in "samoloty polskie" on the left


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 31, 2005)

*Republic XP-47J Thunderbolt*

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-16.jpg

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-17.jpg



From http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p47_9.html :

The fastest version of the Thunderbolt was the XP-47J, which was proposed in November 1942 as a lighter-weight version of the Thunderbolt designed to explore the outer limits of the design's basic performance envelope. The XP-47J was fitted with a 2800 hp Pratt and Whitney R-2800-57(C) housed inside a close-fitting cowling and cooled by a fan. The ventral intake for the CH-5 turbosupercharger was separated from the engine cowling and moved aft. The four-bladed propeller was fitted with a large conical-shaped spinner. The wing structure was lightened and the armament was reduced from eight to six 0.50-inch machine guns. The contract was approved on June 18, 1943.

The XP-47J was a completely new airframe and not a conversion of an existing P-47D. The serial number was 43-46952. The XP-47J flew for the first time on November 26, 1943. On August 4, 1944, it attained a speed of 504 mph in level fight, becoming the first propeller-driven fighter to exceed 500 mph. At one time, it was proposed that the J model would be introduced onto the production line, but the advent of the even more advanced XP-72 resulted in plans for the production of the P-47J being abandoned before any more could be completed.

A proposal to adapt the XP-47J to use contrarotating propellers with an R-2800-61 engine was dropped.

Maximum speed of the XP-47J was 507 mph at 34,300 feet, range was 765 miles at 400 mph, 1070 miles at economical cruising speed. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be reached in 4.5 minutes. Service ceiling was 45,000 feet. Weights were 9663 pounds empty, 12,400 pounds normal loaded, 16,780 pounds maximum. Wingspan was 40 feet 11 inches, length was 33 feet 3 inches, height was 14 feet 2 inches, and wing area was 300 square feet.

From http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/P-47M.html :

The "J" was fitted with a high output version of the P&W R-2800. Specifically, the R-2800-57. This engine made 2,800 hp @ 2,800 rpm at 35,000 feet. This is in War Emergency Power. 

The aircraft actually attained 507 mph at an altitude of 34,300 feet. 2,800 hp is 133% of rated power. At military power (100%), the XP-47J could sustain 470 mph. 435 mph was attained at 81% of its rated power (1,700 hp). All performance figures were obtained at 34,300 feet.

The "J" model was an especially good climbing fighter too. It had a climb rate at sea level of 4,900 fpm. At 20,000 feet, it was still rocketing up at 4,400 fpm, and got there in 4 minutes, 15 seconds. Time to 30,000 feet was only 6 minutes, 45 seconds. Now that's an interceptor! Yet it had a usable range of 1,075 miles. Rather impressive, don't you think? No, this was not a stripped down hotrod. It was fully armed and carried ballast in the wings equal to 267 rds per gun. The aircraft was flown to a height of 46,500 feet and was capable of a bit more.

*Republic XP-72 Superbolt*

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/xp72-2.jpg

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p72-2.jpg

Specific ation of Republic XP-72:

Powerplant: One 3450 hp Pratt Whitney R-4360-13 Wasp Major air-cooled radial engine. 

Performance: Maximum speed was 490 mph at 25,000 feet. Normal range was 1200 miles at 300 mph and maximum range was 2520 miles at 315 mph with two 125 Imp. gall. drop tanks. Initial climb rate was 5280 feet per minute, and climb rate at 25,000 feet was 3550 feet per minute. An altitude of 15,000 feet could be reached in 3.5 minutes, 20,000 feet in 5 minutes. Service ceiling was 42,000 feet. 

Weights were 11,476 pounds empty, 14,433 pounds normal loaded, 17,490 pounds maximum. 

Dimensions were wingspan 40 feet 11 inches, length 36 feet 7 inches, height 16 feet 0 inches, and wing area 300 square feet.

Armament: Four 37mm cannon.

*Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star *

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


----------



## red admiral (Mar 31, 2005)

SAI Ambrosini SS4, a canard pusher fighter from 1939 that was unfortunately destroyed in prototype form.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 31, 2005)

Was the SAI Ambrosini SS4 an Italian fighter? It has a very interesting design. The design engineers certainly were thinking "out of the box."

What were its peformance figures?

What armament did it carry?


----------



## JCS (Mar 31, 2005)

1) Horten Ho229
2) Messerschmitt Me264
3) Polikarpov VIT-2 - I dunno if it was supposed to be a good plane or not but, it certainly did look good...


----------



## Mosin (Mar 31, 2005)

Well I didnt know that the heinkell 100 did see service  
If it did not more then 10 to 50 of them did 
And I also thought that the P-80 did see service.. 
Oh wait a minute I bet you ment in WW2 . I ment in WW2 and the immediate post WW2


----------



## toffigd (Mar 31, 2005)

He 100 in service
In 1940 the He 100's were publicized by Goebbels in a propaganda effort aimed at convincing people that a new fighter was entering service with the Luftwaffe. The plan involved taking pictures of the remaining D-1's at different air bases around Germany, each time sporting a new paint job for various fictional fighter groups. The pictures were then published in the press with the He 113 name, sometimes billed as night fighters (rather silly since you could see they didn't even have a landing light). 

The plane also appeared in a series of "action shot" photographs in various magazines like Der Alder, including claims that it had proven itself in combat in Denmark and Norway. One source claims that the planes were on loan to the one Luftwaffe staffel in Norway for a time, but this might be a case of the same misinformation working many years later. 

It's unclear even today exactly who this effort was intended to impress —foreign air forces or Germany's public— but it seems to have been a successful deception. British intelligence featured the plane in AIR 40/237, a report on the Luftwaffe that was completed in 1940. There the top speed was listed as 390mph (interesting that it also states the wing was 167 square feet) and it noted that the plane was in production. Reports of 113's encountered and shot down were listed throughout the early years of the war. 

The remaining twelve He 100D-1c fighters were used to form Heinkel's Marienehe factory defense unit, flown by factory test pilots. They replaced the earlier He 112's that were used for the same purpose, and the 112's were later sold off. At this early stage in the war there were no bombers venturing that far into Germany, and it appears that the unit never saw action. The eventual fate of the D-1's remains unknown. 

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he100.html


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 31, 2005)

Mosin,

The topic as set out by you concerned "planes that were experimental and never saw action."

The P-80 never saw action. It was deployed right beforen the end of the war but never saw combat (action). 

Perhaps it doesn't fit the second requirement of your topic, "experimental."


----------



## Mosin (Mar 31, 2005)

Yeah that was my idea but now that I think about it your right 
Sorry


----------



## Jank (Mar 31, 2005)

507 mph. That's a screamer. 

Not sure what i would pick. I'll be back.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 1, 2005)

1) Avro 684 Stratosphere Bomber- planned aircraft, a modified lancaster with a predicted ceiling of 50,300ft

2) High speed lancaster- only a project, never flew or made but a predicted top speed of 350mph gove or take a bit..........

3) don't know yet...........


----------



## red admiral (Apr 1, 2005)

> Was the SAI Ambrosini SS4 an Italian fighter? It has a very interesting design. The design engineers certainly were thinking "out of the box."
> 
> What were its peformance figures?
> 
> What armament did it carry?



Max speed was about 540kmh from only 960hp ~ 335mph. Most places list the intended armament as being 1x30mm and 2x20mm but i think it would be more probable to have 1x20mm and 2x12.7mm instead.

Another choice of mine would be the SAI 207/403 lightweight fighter. Only 750hp but 648kmp ~ 400mph speed and excellent handling.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

Here are the aircraft that I wish had seen service:

1. Messerschmitt Me P.1101
2. Blohm Voss Bv-155
3. Henschell Hs-132
4. Messerschmitt Me-263
5. Messerschmitt Me-309
6. Focke Wulf Ta-183
7. Bell XP-83
8. Northrop XP-56

Sorry I know that this list is more then 3 but I could not help myself. I really do wish these had atleast seen a little service so that we may have been able to see what they could really do.


----------



## Mosin (Apr 2, 2005)

Good list Im changing it to all you want (In reason) The ones Im gonna add are the messerschmitt 264 and the japanese reppu 
Ill be back later and see what all has been picked. I never heard of the messerschmitt 309 (im gonna go to MSN search now)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

Type: Single-seat fighter
Origin: Messerscmitt AG
Models: V1 and V2
First Flight: June 1942
Service Delivery: None
Final Delivery: None



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine:
Model: Daimler-Benz DB 605B
Type: Inverted V12 liquid-cooled
Horsepower: 1,475

Dimensions:
Wing span: 11.04m (36 ft. 2¾ in.)
Length: 9.46m (31 ft. ½ in.)
Height: 3.45m (11 ft. 3 in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Weights: (V1)
Empty: 3530kg (7,783 lbs.)
Maximum: 4250kg (9,371 lbs.)

Performance:
Maximum Speed: 733km/h (455 mph)
Initial climb: NA
Range: N/A
Service Ceiling: N/A

Armament: (V4)
Four 13mm Machine Guns
Two 20mm Cannon
Two 30mm Cannon

Avionics:
N/A


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments:
The 309 was originally designed to be the definitive successor to the 109. Innovative features included a pressurized cockpit, tricycle landing gear, and a retractable radiator. However, the 309 could be out turned by the Bf 109G and was judged inferior to the Fw 190D and never reached production. The Me 609 was to be a twinned version similiar to the P-82.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 2, 2005)

cirtainly looks good..............


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 2, 2005)

The Me 309 I think was not that great, and the Me 209 was well close to the bf 109k, yes?

This has to meny good pics and that is just the Italian planes 
But for the USAAC the Bat would have been good.
The USN's New Carriers were on the way.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

Me-209

Messerschmitt's designation Me 209 was actually used for two separate projects during World War II. The first Me 209 was a record-setting single-engined race plane for which little or no consideration was given to adaptation for combat. The second, described below, was the Me 209-II, a proposal for an enhanced version of the highly successful Messerschmitt Bf 109 which served as the Luftwaffe's primary fighter throughout World War II.

The second incarnation of the Me 209 project came in 1943 when Willy Messerschmitt proposed an heavily modified version of his extremely successful but aging Me 109. This Me 209 would compete against Focke-Wulf's high performance Fw 190D-9 and Ta 152 fighters. Like these enhanced versions of Kurt Tank's design, the new Me 209 would share most of its airframe with a proven model, in this case the Me 109G. This marked a departure from the first failed Me 209 and later Me 309 projects which had proposed completely new designs.

Unfortunately for the design team, the Me 209's proposed DB 603 engine was in short supply and they were forced to use the Jumo 213E engine which offered inferior performance. The Me 209 featured a new tail section, broad-track landing gear, a taller tail, and an annular radiator which gave the engine a superficial resemblance to a radial powerplant. As with the original 209 project, however, successive modifications undermined the original purpose of the plane, in this case to build a superior fighter as similar to the existing Me 109G as possible.

As the project progressed, increasingly cumbersome designations signalled the Me 209's evolution from a simple, enhanced version of the Bf 109 to a progressively incompatible airframe. The Me 209 V5 featured armament of one MK 108 and two MG 131 in the wingroots. The V6 was the first version to be converted to use the Jumo 213 engine and had MG 151/20 guns instead of the MG 131. The Me 209H V1 was a high-altitude variant with extended wings and reverted to the DB 603.

Despite this proliferation of variants however, the program met a swift end when the Me 209 V5 prototype first flew in late 1944. It was 50 km/h (31 mph) slower than the already-available Fw 190D, however, and offered no improvement in handling characteristics. After its disappointing show, the Me 209 project was cancelled and with it ended Messerschmitt's last attempt to build a high-performance piston engine fighter.

General characteristics
Crew: one, pilot 
Length: 9.74 m (31 ft 11 in) 
Wingspan: 10.95 m (35 ft 11 in) 
Height: 4.00 m (13 ft 1 in) 
Wing area: 17.2 m² (185 ft²) 
Empty: 3,339 kg (7,346 lb) 
Loaded: 4,085 kg (8,987 lb) 
Maximum takeoff: kg ( lb) 
Powerplant: 1x Db 603G, 1,397 kW (1,900 hp) 

Performance
Maximum speed: 678 km/h (423 mph) 
Range: 600 km (374 miles) 
Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,080 ft) 
Rate of climb: m/min ( ft/min) 
Wing loading: 238 kg/m² (49 lb/ft²) 
Power/Mass: 0.36 kW/kg (0.22 hp/lb) 

Armament
1x 30 mm MK 108 cannon 
2x 13 mm MG 131 machine guns 

Other designs derived from the Me-109 were the

Me-109Z



> The Messerschmitt development department received a directive in 1942 to begin work on a Zerstörer (destroyer, or heavy fighter). An earlier RLM directive of 1941 had tried to limit the amount of new designs coming from the major aircraft companies (to not disrupt the production lines with new aircraft), so it was decided to couple two Bf 109 fuselages together, along with a new center wing and tailplane section, to come up with the Me 109Z (Zwilling, or twin).
> The Me 109Z prototype incorporated two Bf 109F-4 fuselages, joined with a new constant chord wing center section and parallel chord tailplane. Included also was the 109F-4 powerplant, the Daimler Benz DB 601E-1 engine (12 cylinder, liquid-cooled, inverted V - 1750 horsepower on takeoff). The main landing gear attachment point were moved inboard to attach to a strengthened centerline keel in each fuselage. The outermost main landing gear retracted outboard; the inner legs retracted into the new center wing section. A single pilot sat in the port cockpit and the starboard cockpit was faired over. Armament on the projected production models varied (see below).
> Several other Me 109Z designs were planned, developed around the 109G fuselages. The Me 109Z was to use around 90% of pre-existing 109 parts, with only the new main wing and tailplane, modified landing gear mountings, slightly larger wheels, extra fuel tanks in place of the starboard cockpit and a few other components needed to complete the aircraft. A prototype was completed in early 1943, but it was damaged in an Allied air attack on the Messerschmitt test center, and the damage was deemed too severe for repair. The development was abandoned in 1944, and by then, the Me 262 jet fighter had taken wing. One interesting note: the North American aircraft company followed the same design (independently) to produce the P-82 Twin Mustang, which was two P-51 fuselages joined in a similar manner as the Me 109Z.
> http://www.luft46.com/mess/me109z.html



Me-109TL



> The Messerschmitt 109 Turbo-Lader Strahltriebwerk ( turbocharger jet engine) was proposed on January 22, 1943 at an RLM conference as a back-up for the Me 262, of which only three prototypes had been completed at the time. In order to cut down on design and production time, various components from existing aircraft was to be used. The fuselage from the Me 155B high-altitude fighter was to be used (with a new nose and tail section), the wing was from the Me 409 project and the undercarriage came from the Me 309. The armament was to be two MG 151/20 20mm cannon (120 rounds each) and two MK 103 30mm cannon, all in the nose. A later proposal included two MK 108 30mm cannon could be installed in the wing roots. The performance was estimated to be better than the Me 262 due to the Me 109 TL's narrower fuselage. Following intensive study, by March 1943 it was decided that so many modifications to the various components would be needed that no time would be gained over the Me 262 development, thus the project was abandoned. Please see below for Evan Mayerle's fictional technical history of the Me 109 TL...
> http://www.luft46.com/mess/me109tl.html



Me-309 which was covered in earlier post

Me-409

The Me 409 design was similar in concept to the Bf 109Z, except that the fuselages of the Me 209 high-altitude fighter were used, and the new wing that had been designed for the Me 155. The project was cancelled in 1944. 


Me-509



> Although the Me 509 can trace its roots back to the Me 309, very little information has survived. The aircraft was to be of an all-metal construction. A new fuselage was designed, with the pressurized cockpit being moved well forward near the nose. The Daimler Benz 605B 12-cylinder engine was buried in the fuselage behind the cockpit, and drove a three-bladed, Me P 6 reversible-pitch propeller by an extension shaft which passed beneath the cockpit (similar to the US Bell P-39). The wing was tapered and had rounded wingtips, and was mounted low on the fuselage. Other Me 309 components were to be used, such as the tricycle landing gear, and the vertical tail assembly was similar to the one used for the Me 309 V1. Armament was not decided upon for the 509, but it is thought that two MG 131 13mm machine guns and two MG 151 20mm cannon were to be used. Although there were advantages of better cockpit visibility and relocation of the engine weight from the nose gear (important, since the Me 309's nose gear often collapsed), the Me 509 design and development was stopped when the Me 309 program was ended in mid-1943.
> In April 1945, the Japanese completed a very similar project, the Yokosuka R2Y Keiun. Although no firm evidence exists, it is possible that the Me 309/509 information was licensed to the Japanese military, as were a number of other German designs (Bf 109, He 100, Me 163, Me 410, among others).
> http://www.luft46.com/mess/me509.html




Me-609

The Messerschmitt Me 609 was a short-lived project which joined two fuselages of the Me 309 fighter prototype together to form a heavy fighter. The project was initiated in response to a 1941 RLM requirement for a new Zerstörer (heavy fighter) to replace the Bf 110 that would use a minimum of development time and new parts. Messerschmitt's response was the Me 609, which would use the failed Me 309 project to form the basis of the new fighter. The company had actually contemplated numerous twin-fuselage adaptations of its Bf 109 line including the Bf 109Z (which joined two Bf 109s) and the Me 409 (which used two Me 209 aircraft).

The Me 609 would have joined the two Me 309 fuselages with a new center wing section into which the two inboard wheels of the landing gear would retract. The Me 609 kept the Me 309's tricycle undercarriage which resulted in an ungainly 6-six wheel arrangement. The Me 609 would have had its cockpit in the port fuselage, the starboard begin smoothed over.

The finished project would have been used in both the heavy-fighter and high-speed bomber roles, but by the time designs were being ironed out, the revolutionary Me 262 negated the need for further piston-engined fighter design.

Although its cobbled-together appearance might lead one to suspect this doubling of existing airframes was a the move of a desperate design team, it should be noted that the North American P-82 Twin Mustang proved the efficacy of such an aircraft in Korea, where its superior speed and range made it one of the last piston-engined fighters to fight for the U.S. Air Force.

General characteristics
Crew: one, pilot 
Length: 9.72 m (31 ft 11 in) 
Wingspan: 15.75 m (52 ft 6 in) 
Height: 3.43 m (11 ft 3 in) 
Wing area: m² ( ft²) 
Empty: 5,247 kg (11,660 lb) 
Loaded: 6,534 kg (14,520 lb) 
Maximum takeoff: kg ( lb) 
Powerplant: 2x Daimler-Benz DB 603, kW ( hp) each 

Performance
Maximum speed: 760 km/h (472 mph) 
Range: km ( miles) 
Service ceiling: m ( ft) 
Rate of climb: m/min ( ft/min) 
Wing loading: kg/m² ( lb/ft²) 
Power/Mass: kW/kg ( hp/lb) 

Armament
2x 30 mm MK 103 cannons 
2x 30 mm MK 108 cannons 
500 kg (1,100 lb) of bombs


----------



## Mosin (Apr 2, 2005)

Thanks for all the great photos and specs deradler


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2005)

just one i've got.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 3, 2005)

Kein Problem


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 4, 2005)

P-51H - these were available before war's end but were never deployed for logistics reasons.





P-38K - An L with a paddle prop - the USAAF declined to give up 2 weeks production of L's for the needed re-tooling for this model.





F8F - Two Essex class carriers loaded with Bearcats were 2 weeks out of Perl when the A-bomb was dropped.





F7F - Tigercat's were relocating off Gaum and in China to begin combat operations when the A-bomb was dropped.





P-47J - this cowl design was not pursued, it was figured that 480 mph (P-47M) was fast enough.





AD Skyraider - Would have been fighting against Japan by Nov. 1945. 8000 lbs normal payload and extremely durable.





Hawker Tempest II - A superior version of the Tempest, vibration and cooling problems with the Bristol Centaraus engine kept it out of WWII. These were solved near the end of the war and units were deployed for the Pacific, but never saw action.





Martin-Baker M.B.5 - not pursued as the RAF was satisfied with the Spitfire line. Despite denials, there is little question this is basically a Spitfire-Mustang Hybrid. Look at the cooling system! 8)

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2005)

Yeah the Bearcat and the Skyraider would have been really interesting to see in WW2. It also would have been neat to see the P-51H up against the Ta-152H.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2005)

> Despite denials, there is little question this is basically a Spitfire-Mustang Hybrid. Look at the cooling system



well the mustang was as good as british anyway.........


----------



## evangilder (Apr 4, 2005)

Nice list, RG. The Skyraider would have been one heck of an asset in the Pacific.


----------



## Mosin (Apr 4, 2005)

I personaly have always liked thead skyraider and the last mustang


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 4, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > Despite denials, there is little question this is basically a Spitfire-Mustang Hybrid. Look at the cooling system
> 
> 
> 
> well the mustang was as good as british anyway.........



Not hardly. It was designed in the USA, by North American Aviation, an American company. The design team consisted of NAA employees and Cal-Tech grad students. The original desing specified the Allison engine and performance in the same general catagory as the P-40, and at about the same cost per unit.

The only thing British about the P-51 was the Merlin engine in the P-51B and later models. If this engine had not been employed, either the Continental hyper-engine with 2 stage supercharging would have been completed and utilized, or a 2nd supercharger stage or a turbo-supercharger for the Allison would have been employed.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Apr 4, 2005)

Something very interesting. I like the Bearcat and the latest subtyps of Spitfire, Mustang and Thundebolt, too. But these planes were beyond the technology as they have been introduced, that´s why I would like more to see the jets than to see the pinnacle of piston engined planes:
1.) P-80 -a very few have been in service at the wars end 8) 
2.) Ar-234 C -with over 560 mp/h top speed a new generation of bomber, however, only 14 planes build by wars end 
3.) He-162 A -operational by end of april´45
4.) D.H. Vampire , it could have come earlier 
5.) Me-262 B2 -this would have been THE NIGHTFIGHTER of it´s time

And because I like it´s design: 
6.) J-7 Shiden

This would be my list...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Something very interesting. I like the Bearcat and the latest subtyps of Spitfire, Mustang and Thundebolt, too. But these planes were beyond the technology as they have been introduced, that´s why I would like more to see the jets than to see the pinnacle of piston engined planes:
> 1.) P-80 -a very few have been in service at the wars end 8)
> 2.) Ar-234 C -with over 560 mp/h top speed a new generation of bomber, however, only 14 planes build by wars end
> 3.) He-162 A -operational by end of april´45
> ...





RG_Lunatic said:


> I agree with you on this. The Vampire and the 262B-2 could have really been interesting. The 234C however was too late, Germany needed fighters not bombers. But otherwise I agree with you completely.
> 
> Not hardly. It was designed in the USA, by North American Aviation, an American company. The design team consisted of NAA employees and Cal-Tech grad students. The original desing specified the Allison engine and performance in the same general catagory as the P-40, and at about the same cost per unit.
> 
> The only thing British about the P-51 was the Merlin engine in the P-51B and later models. If this engine had not been employed, either the Continental hyper-engine with 2 stage supercharging would have been completed and utilized, or a 2nd supercharger stage or a turbo-supercharger for the Allison would have been employed.



I think was he was trying to say is that the P-51 was as good as any British Fighter and not that it was actually British.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2005)

no i was actually saying it was practilly brittish


----------



## wmaxt (Apr 4, 2005)

Well you can take pride in the fact that the name was Brittish! As were the Lightning and the Catalina.


----------



## lightning38 (Apr 4, 2005)

Can anyone here tell me anything about the Gotha/Horten HO-1X? I know it was experimental and was nearly put into service but that's about it.


----------



## lightning38 (Apr 4, 2005)

That's Ho-IX. Sorry.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 5, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no i was actually saying it was practilly brittish



Which is of course false.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

despite the fact it was designed to a british specification, had a british name, a british engine and i believe some british people high up in the design team..........


----------



## delcyros (Apr 5, 2005)

The Ho- IX flying wing jet was a project of the Luftwaffenkommando IX, led by Reimar and Walter Horten. It is also known as Go-229, since the RLM ordered 20 preproduction units (Go-229 A0) to be made by the Gothaer Waggonfabrik. There have been two planes build, the protoype Ho-IX V-1 (unpowered glider) and Ho-IX V-2 (with two Jumo-004 B2 powerplants). The V-3 prototype was nearly completed and brought into the US (it can be found either in the NASM depot of Silver Hill or at restauration, I don´t know). Several other prototypes (V-4, V-5, V-6) were found at VE-day in different stages of construction.
V-1 was flown from mid 1944 on to determine the flying charackteristics, it did bear a fixed main gear and not powerplants. In early april ´45 it was brought to Brandis, were it was captured by US troops. It´s fate is unknown.
V-2 was also finished in mid 1944, but the Jumo-004 jet engines forced the designers to redesign the center wing section (the diameter of the Jumos was elliptical and not circular, as told by Junkers industies), thus delayed the completion of V-2 to end 1944. The critical Mach number was also lowered a lot (V-1: 0,84 V-2: 0,79 -estimation by R. Horten). It remains unclear whether the maiden flight was on december 1944 or february 1945 ( first flight logged in february but eyewitnesses remember that it was prior to christmas day 1944) However the prototype logged only a few hours flight as it was destroyed because of an engine failure, killing the test pilot Erwin Ziller. The logged flights include also a top speed flight of Askania-recorded 607 mp/h (977 Km/h) in level flight.
There has been a discussion if the Ho-IX was intended to be stealthy or not, Horten underlines that he used the flying wing layout and coal layer on the surface to absorb or redirect radar energy. It is not confirmed.
In the end it´s development was far away from beeing put into service. As far as I know, JG 400 (known for the Me-163) was ordered to take over Ho-IX/Go-229 A-0 in mid 1945, but this remains pure speculation. A timeframe between late 1945 and early 1946 is more realistic.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

Damn you RG, I was gonna say P-38K


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

fine by me i'd just be flying higher than all you guys at 50,300ft in my lanc..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

Dying of the cold....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 5, 2005)

not true, i have a slave merlin in my fusilage to power all heating and electrical systems..........


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 5, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> despite the fact it was designed to a british specification, had a british name, a british engine and i believe some british people high up in the design team..........



The "British Specification" was for a plane similar to the P-40 - another US plane. Other than the requirment that it be of equivalent performance and use an inline engine, there was not much else in that "British Specification".

Originally the P-51 used an Allison engine with a one stage supercharger, then it used a US built Packard Merlin with a two stage supercharger, which was a licensed version of the Rolls Royce Merlin with some minor modifcations. However, the decision to use the Merlin instead of either a 2 stage Allison, or the Continental Hyper-engine, was driven as much by the desire to produce Packard Merlins and sub-parts for RR Merlins for British/Canadian (in Spitfires and Lancasters) use as anything else. NAA had wanted to put a two stage supercharger or a turbo-supercharger in the plane from the get-go, but the "British Specification" did not allow for that, it would have made the plane more expensive than the P-40. The decision was based more on tooling concerns than anything else.

As far as British members of the design team - as far as I know there were none. The designers at NAA were, for the most part, either German/Austrian by birth, or Americans. Most of them were either former Cal-Tech graduates, or Cal-Tech grad students.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 5, 2005)

C.C. the P-38K would have been a great sight to see and the armorment for it was great 

Yes, the F7F was in theature, but it did fly for the Marines. But they were not active off a carrier that would have been even better.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2005)

lightning38 said:


> That's Ho-IX. Sorry.



Here is some info on the Gotha Ho-229. The only remaining one of the 2 built is at the Paul Garber Facility of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum awaiting restoration. It will be a beaut when it is finished. The Last 2 pictures below are of the Ho-229 at the Paul Garber Facility.



> Origin: Gothaer Waggonfabrik AG. to Horten design (see note below)
> Type: Single seat fighter/bomber
> 
> Engines:
> ...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2005)

Is it going to be restored to flying condition?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

i doubt it


----------



## evangilder (Apr 7, 2005)

I don't think the Garber facility restores them to flyable condition. I think they restore to static display condition due mainly to costs. Plus, with the amount of airplanes the Smithsonian owns, could you imagine the insurance?!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

Fair enough 8) Should be a beauty when its done though!


----------



## evangilder (Apr 7, 2005)

Definitely, they do a nice job with the static displays that they have done so far.

Willow, are you sure the F7F flew during the war? I have seen sources that say it did, but I have also seen sources that said it did not. I haven't been able to verify it either way.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 7, 2005)

The F7F definitley flew in WWII. It was actually flying in 1944.

However, it never saw "combat". Some operational sorties were flown, probably of a recon nature. Some ASW patrols were also flown, but I've not been able to find evidence of a confirmed attack on a Japanese sub.

There was at least one MAG operating Tigercats before the end of WWII. It had departed Guam for forward bases in indo-china about two weeks before the A-bomb was dropped. I think there was one more, but I am not sure where it was based. Some evidence indicates it may have been based in China, but I'm not confident that is not just reflecting the re-deployment of the Guam MAG. Other evidence indicates it may still have been state side.

There were also a few night-fighter F7F's deployed before the end of the war, but I have no info on whether or not they might have seen combat.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Is it going to be restored to flying condition?



I really dont think they could if they wanted to, It would be too hard to rebuild the engine.


----------



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

not to mantion all the permission and cirtificates and tests that thing'd have to pass..........


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 8, 2005)

Evenglider, RG had what I have found. That they were operating outside of the US but only a few Recone missions. They were on the way to combat zones though. 

Question for you all know of any F7Fs that I could get a ride in?


----------



## evangilder (Apr 8, 2005)

Sorry, I meant to ask if they flew in combat. I know there a few still flying, but I am not sure where. I have heard there are about 6, but I don't have a definite number.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

there's only one in Europe i believe, it belongs to the Fighter Collection at Duxford............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 9, 2005)

I would _love_ to get over and see that Duxford collection! Is there anything they _don't_ have? 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

Piaggio P.108 maybe?  (Damn them!)


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 9, 2005)

They don't have a Beaufort


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 9, 2005)

C.C, what a nice little Warthog you have 

But it's grandfather the P-47 was a bit better. I would have liked to see the Italian fighters that were on the drawing board. C.C, what do you think of that?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

oh god don't get him started on this...........


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 9, 2005)

I would have liked to have seen the Lincoln in RAF service from 1939, Germany and Japan wouldn't have known what hit it.

1000 posts, finally!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

man the lincoln was amazing!! i'd loved to have seen her in combat as well......

and welcome to the 1000+ club................


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 9, 2005)

Thanks Lanc


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 9, 2005)

What's the Lincoln? Do you have a picture?


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 9, 2005)

It's a stretched Lancaster that was going to be used as part of Tiger Force, it also served well into the 50's as the main RAF heavy bomber


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

> AVRO 694 LINCOLN - Designed by Roy Chadwick to Specification B.I4/43 as a AVRO Lancaster variant (originally Lancaster IV and Lancaster V with Merlin 85 and Merlin 68A respectively) with greater wing span, enlarged fuselage and increased performance. Prototype first flown June 9, 1944, with Merlin 85s; armament of paired 0.50-in (12.7-mm) machine guns in nose, dorsal and tail turrets, and bomb-load up to 14,000 Ib (6,356 kg). Production AVRO Lincoln B Mk Is entered service with No 57 Sqn at East Kirkby in August 1945 in preparation for joining Tiger Force in the Far East.
> 
> Max speed, 295 mph (475 km/h) at 15,000ft (4 572 m). Cruising speed, 215 mph (346 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,100 m). Initial climb, 800 ft/min (4.06 mlsec). Service ceiling, 30,500ft (9,296 m). Time to 20,000ft (6,100 m), 2672 min. Range, 1,470 mis (2,365 km) with max bomb load. Empty weight, 43,778 Ib (19,875 kg). Gross weight, 82,000 Ib (37,228' Span, 120ft 0 in (36.58 m). Length, 78ft 3'/2 in (23.85 m). Wing area, 1,421 sq ft (132.0m2) .



source for text and picture- www.jaapteeuwen.com


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 9, 2005)

Nice pic, I never lliked the nose of the Lincoln compared to the Lanc


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

Ummm that cannot be right lanc...

*"Time to 20,000ft (6,100 m), 2672 min"*

That's over 44 hours!


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 9, 2005)

Sounds like the climb rate of the Spruce Goose!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

i actually think it looks really good..............

also as a note the lincoln could also carry the grandslam, however it does not mention it in the text..............


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i actually think it looks really good..............
> 
> also as a note the lincoln could also carry the grandslam, however it does not mention it in the text..............



Could it carry a Fat-Man?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

about 11,000lbs wasn't she?? yeah she could take two........


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> about 11,000lbs wasn't she?? yeah she could take two........



It was not the weight that was the issue.... it was the girth. It was not called "Fat-man" for nuthin!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

yeah we'd just take away the bomb doors and come up with some amazing remote arming system


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

Or build a bigger, better plane


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

and call it...mmmm...ah!! the vulcan!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

you know i really should take that idea to the MoD........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

I know! Make it a Delta wing! That would be really radical!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

right so we'll both go upto the gates of RAF St. Mawgan and say, "hello, we have the name of a plane we would like to suggest please"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

Oh, a quick Google search shows it already exists


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

man they stole that idea quickly, someone here must be a spy, but who


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

Oh fine, its me.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

were you away the day they were teaching how to resist interigation??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

Yes, I had to attend an important lawnmower convention.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2005)

Nope it was me!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 10, 2005)

Damn, well it cant be both of us


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2005)

but which is it


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 10, 2005)

Find out in the next installment of "Life on ww2aircraft.net"!  (ie when I get back from eating my dinner...)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2005)

well is there anyone else claiming the title of "spy that steals teenager's aircraft ideas before making them into the worlds finest delta wing bomber" ??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2005)

I swear it was me! Man we have to get back on topic!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 10, 2005)

I wish the Beryznak-Isayev BI-1 Rocket Interceptor had progressed further than it did.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2005)

well then just fit a ventral drop tank, that should take it twice as far..........


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 11, 2005)

The Lincon would have been interesting. But Lanc how would they have come into service sooner then 1945? 

How about the P-80?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2005)

i never said they did, someone else asked about them, ant BTW, the prototype flew in 1944.............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2005)

The P-80 reached service it just did not see combat.


----------



## GT (Apr 17, 2005)

Update.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 17, 2005)

What is it GT?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2005)

I think its a Saab, but im not sure which model. Is it a J.21?


----------



## GT (Apr 17, 2005)

Update.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2005)

It was never built past a wooden mockup stage. The type II prototype was built however it was never flown.



> The Tachikawa Ki-94
> 
> The Tachikawa Ki-94 was to have a development life just the opposite of the Yokosuka R2Y Keiun in the aspect that the Ki-94 began as a radical and advanced thinking aircraft only to become, in the end, a much more conventional one.
> 
> ...


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

It looks structurally unsound to me. I doubt it could have executed high G manuvers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2005)

The Type I probably not, but the Type II inwhich a prototype was built probably could have. If you look though she is a traditional fighter and not of a twin tail boom design. The last 3 pictures are of a Type 2, the top 2 are of the wooden mock up of the Type I.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

I was only considering the type I, the type II is nothing special at all, it lacks the rear engine and is just a very big fighter which would have been grossly underpowered.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

XP-55 - WITH A MERLIN!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

always thought that was a bit of a strange concept............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2005)

Yes the XP-54, 55 and 56 were developed under the concept of "strange aircraft" but they didnt possess any real advantages over normal aircraft so they were never accepted...


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

XP-55 (July 1943 - notice swept wings)





XP-56 (Sept. 1944 - notice swept wings)





=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

SWEET!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

and stupid.........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> XP-55 (July 1943 - notice *swept wings*)...XP-56 (Sept. 1944 - notice *swept wings*)


Trying to tell us something, RG?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2005)

Yea - Jack Northrop either has ESP or he's an ailen!


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 17, 2005)

The Xp-56 looks like a Me163 with a prop


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

Just pointing out that swept wings were being invesitaged in the US as early as 1943.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 17, 2005)

I figured as much. 
They were certainly interesting designs.


----------



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

well would you look at that, we were researching swept wing tailless aircraft in 1943 as well...........


----------



## Soren (Apr 18, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I was only considering the type I, the type II is nothing special at all, it lacks the rear engine and is just a very big fighter which would have been grossly underpowered.



With 2,400 hp ? I can tell you the P-47 was bigger, and most had a less powerful engine aswell, however i never hear you mention that fighter as underpowered !

Btw don't be fouled by the workers small size in comparison to the a/c, as Jap's were usually very small back then. (Remember how Allied test-pilots felt in a Zero cockpit ?  )


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2005)

Yeah I was just about to say the same thing except that Soren the P-47 was slightly smaller.

*Ki-94-II* 
High-altitude Fighter 
Crew: One 
Powerplant: One Nakajima [Ha-44]12 18-cyl., air-cooled radial 
rated at a maximum of 2,450hp. 
Armaments: Two 30mm Ho-105 cannon, two 20mm Ho-5 cannon;
can carry one 1,102lb. bomb 
Speed: 
Max Speed at sea level: NA 
Maximum Speed projected at: 442mph at 39,370ft. 
Range: 1,305 miles 
Climb: 17min. 38sec. to 32,810ft. 
Ceiling: 48,170ft. 
Dimensions: 
Span: 45ft. 11 3/16in. 
Length: 39ft. 4 7/16in. 
Height: 15ft. 3 1/16in. 
Wing Area: 301.388 sq. ft. 
Weights: 
Empty: 10,340lbs. 
Loaded: 14,220lbs. 
Deployed: One prototype produced, one partially built 

*P-47 Thunderbolt*
Type: Fighter-Bomber 
Manufacturer: Republic 
Crew: One
First Flight: May 6, 1941
Service Delivery: June 1942 (56th Fighter Group) 
Final Delivery: N/A 
Production: 15,677

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Wing Span: 40 ft. 9.25 in. (12.43m)
Length: 36 ft. 1.75 in. (11.02m)
Height: 14 ft. 8 in. (4.47m)
Wing Area: 300.0 sq. ft (27.87m2)

Weights:
Empty: 9,950 lb. (4513 kg)
Maximum Take-Off: 17,500 lb. (7938 kg.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance:
Max. Speed, Clean: 433 mph (697 km/h)
Service Ceiling: 41,000 ft. (12495m
Range with drop tanks: 1,00 miles (3058m)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament:
Eight 12.7mm (0.5 in.) machine guns in wings

Bombload:
Up to 2,500 lb. (1134 kg) of bombs carried externally

Powerplant:
XP-47B:
Model: Pratt Whitney XR-2800 Double Wasp
Type: Radial Piston Engine.
Number: One Horsepower: 1,850 hp (later 2,000 hp)

P-47B:
Model: Pratt Whitney R-2800-21 Double Wasp
Type: Radial Piston Engine.
Number: One Horsepower: 2,000 hp

Later P-47C:
Model: Pratt Whitney R-2800-59 Double Wasp
Type: Radial Piston Engine.
Number: One Horsepower: 2,300 hp

P-47D:
Model: P&W R-2800-21W or -51W Double Wasp
Type: Radial Piston Engine.
Number: One Horsepower: 2,300 hp or 2,535 hp

XP-47H:
Model: Chrysler XIV-2220-1
Type: Inverted Vee Piston Engine.
Number: One Horsepower: 2,300 hp

XP-47J:
Model: Pratt Whitney R-2800-57 (C) Double Wasp
Type: Turbocharged Radial Piston Engine.
Number: One Horsepower: 2,800 hp

P-47N:
Model: Pratt Whitney R-2800-77 Double Wasp
Type: Radial Piston Engine.
Number: One Horsepower: 2,800 hp


So lets see. The Ki-94-II was only about 3ft bigger then the P-47. The wing span was about 5 ft bigger then the P-47 though, which did give the Ki-94 more wing area. Height was only about 1ft more for the Ki-94-II. Only the P-47J, M, N had more powerful engines then the Ki-94-II so I dont think the Ki-94-II would have been as bad you think it would have RG_Lunatic. I dont know though since it never flew but you cant say it would have been all that bad either since well basically you dont know.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 18, 2005)

I would have liked that Ki-94 mk-1, it might not have flown well or at all, but with a little work it might be nice. But it would look like the cockpit would be very hot evenif it was under pressure.

How about the midget fighters that were to hang under the bombers!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 18, 2005)

The Japanese proved over and over they were unable to make such an engine. "Designing" it and printing an HP number on a tech sheet does not mean anything. That goes for all these fantasy specs, they are all based upon nothing but smoke and wishful thinking of the Japanese engineers and military personel.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 18, 2005)

Swept back wings....
Not that surprising. You have to differ between accidently (as can be seen on the Me-262 A), forced by constructionlayout (XP-55,56 and the flying wing) and INTENTIONALLY because of better high speed figures.
Swept back wings can be found of planes from 1910 (dunne, swept back wing biplane). Dr. Lusser formulated in 1935 for the first time that swept back wings would shift the increasing drag to higher Mach figures (so it delayed the max drag, it doesn´t reduce it!)
Look at the XP-56 picture. the swept back wing design is necessary because of the rudders on the wingtips. They have to be put as far back as possible, that forced to use a swept design.
flying wing designs even depend more on the swept back wing (in order to offer at least a bit of stability).
There are also some problems with the swept back wing layout, which made this design unattractive for most aircraft designers until 1946:
1.) Increased weight
2.) Considerably less lift (thanks to a thinner wing)
3.) Reduced low speed and stall behavior (higher stall speed)
The last point was to be the most concerned, either wing boundary layers (tested by DVA in 1944) or leading edge slots reduce these effects greatly.
The first designs to deal with these problems for specificly high speed swept wings are:
1.) Me-163 A/B (because of the tailles layout) -1941
2.) Me-262 A (accidently because of the heavier Jumos and shifted center of weight) -late 1942
3.) Me-262 HG I (with more swept back wing inlet for better high speed figure) -1944
4.) Ho-IX (forced by flying wing construction layout) -1944/45
5.) Ju-287 (forward swept wing for better high speed figures) -1944
6.) Ho-XIIIa (60 degrees swept back wing glider for low speed tests)
7.) Me-262 HG-II (35 degrees swept back wing for better high speed figures) -1945 (not flown)
8.) Me-263/Ju-248 (because of the tailles design and because of better high speed figure) -1945
9.) Me-P.1101 (with variable wing swept) -1945 (not flown)
While it is true that US aerodynamics studied swept wings in 1945 (10 years after Lusser), designers refused to adopt the idea for their high speed jets (P-80, P-84 and the very first P-86) because of the risks of worse low speed handling. Acces to german aerodynamic research proved to be vital for overcoming the shortcomings of a swept wing that fast in UK/US/SU and Sweden...


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 18, 2005)

What I find interesting is that modern designs have moved away from heavily swept back wings. Look at the F-18 for example:







=S=

Lunatic


----------



## MikeMan (Apr 19, 2005)

The F-18 wing is optimised for sub-mach performance and max speed of less tham M2.0


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 19, 2005)

The point is you don't need a lot of sweep to break mach 1. A little is enough.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 19, 2005)

To be more concrete: 
You don´t even need a single degree of swept wings in order to break Mach 1. It all depends on speed. If you have a standart speed for a design up to Mach 0.7 you better use straight wings than anything else (lowest drag in that speed for good rate of lift)
At speeds between Mach 0.8 and 1.2 It is better to use swept wings (they shift the max drag figure beyond Mach 1.3).
At speeds beyond Mach 1.3 it is best to use either delta wings or straight wings. (actually delta wings are preferred, because the air behaves like a solid, reucing the drag from three dimensions to only two)
And of course it all depends on the thrust, also:
The P-80 with straight wings would need around 5000 lbs thrust to overcome the drag at 600 mp/h. With 30 degrees swept wings it would only cost around 3800-4000 lbs of thrust. On the other hand if we estimate that the airframe could go supersonic (it cannot), than the drag at Mach 1.3 would be lower for the straight wing design than for the swept wing design!
In the timeframe of 1942-1946 the thrust is the limiting factor for increasing the speed, that´s why they relied on swept wing designs for a better max speed figure. Dr. Lippisch worked on a deltawing, also (DM-1).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> The Japanese proved over and over they were unable to make such an engine. "Designing" it and printing an HP number on a tech sheet does not mean anything. That goes for all these fantasy specs, they are all based upon nothing but smoke and wishful thinking of the Japanese engineers and military personel.



I disagree the engine for the Ki-94-II was already built and placed into the prototype. If the engine was already built it was already ground tested and probably tested in other aircraft before it was put into this aircraft. You say wishful thinking.....hello did you read that they built one that was ready to fly. Probably not because you automatically asume that it is crap because it was not built by the US.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 19, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > The Japanese proved over and over they were unable to make such an engine. "Designing" it and printing an HP number on a tech sheet does not mean anything. That goes for all these fantasy specs, they are all based upon nothing but smoke and wishful thinking of the Japanese engineers and military personel.
> ...



Have you read about Japanese high HP engine development? None of their attempts to reach 2000 HP resulted in a reliable engine. I assume this engine was like the rest, made from insufficiently strong steel and lacking in advanced machine techniques necessary to build such an engine. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Just because you try to build something does not mean it will work, or that it will be anywhere near reliable enough to result in an effective weapon system.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 19, 2005)

Rg, I will grant you that the Japanese engine program did have problums. Most due to the B-29s bombing and the Naval blockade. Also as said tooling and workers skills were of poor quality. But that was all late in the war. 

A 2000 Hp engine could have i think been ready for the A6M if its development would have properly been done.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 19, 2005)

There is really no evidence to support that. The sakae engines were derivatives of the Wright Cyclone SGR-1820 and P&W Wasp SB3G-1830 1000 HP engines they aquired under licence from Douglas in 1935 (DC2) and 1938 (DC3) respectively. They aquired not only the designs but also key machine tooling necessary to build these planes and engines. All future engine development was based upon the production technology aquired at this time. The Japanese did make some improvements on this engine, but despite much effort never got much past the Sakae 21 in terms of a combat worthy powerplant.

The Japanese did try to build their own 18 cylinder engines, but these were all failures for one reason or another. Japanese metalurgy and machine techniques simply were not up to the task. They could look at captured R-2600's and R-2800's and try to copy them using the metals and machine tools they had, but this simply didn't result in a reliable engine.

Many aspects of Japanese aviation were quite innovative and competative with any nation in the world, but their engine technology was a shortcomming they could never overcome. A Ki-84 with an R2800-18W would have been a truely increadible plane!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 20, 2005)

Same situation as the Italians then- good airframes but not enough horsepower to move it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Have you read about Japanese high HP engine development? None of their attempts to reach 2000 HP resulted in a reliable engine. I assume this engine was like the rest, made from insufficiently strong steel and lacking in advanced machine techniques necessary to build such an engine. There is no evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Just because you try to build something does not mean it will work, or that it will be anywhere near reliable enough to result in an effective weapon system.



I will give in to most of this because you are correct however I just dont want to discredit it. Yes you are correct in the fact that it was mostly fantasy however we will never know. This one may have been it. Can I prove it no. Nor do I state to think that I can. I just think this could have been a formidle high alltitude interceptor had it came out ealier and entered service. Maybe somthing for the B-29's to have worried about.

And that is why this should be in the What plane do you wish had seen service thread, it would have been interesting to see how it would have panned out.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 22, 2005)

Nice take on the Sakae engines RG. I have read over some of the problums and yes it seems that they and the Italians did have some of the same problums. 

As for a plane I would have liked to see, why not the P-40Q? Or the PBYs replacment, the "Guppy" it never even made it past prototype. It is the Model 32 or 33 I think.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 22, 2005)

Hows about the Hornet?


----------



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

what a plane!!


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 22, 2005)

Ahhh, yes, the awesome, superlative de Havilland D.H. 103 Hornet !!!!.......

- Indeed, what an aircraft !! This was an aircraft that may have made a very decisive difference in the Air War, particuarly in the Pacific, capable of meeting single-engined Jap fighters in combat, and were developed for very longe range and had medium-altitude fighter characteristics....Unfortunately, all Hornets missed WWII, but many did great service in the Malayan conflict, ''Operation Firedog'' from 1948-60.

The idea was hatched back in 1942, after the exceptional operational success of the Mosquito, and a mock-up was viewed by the Air Ministry in Jan. 1943, production consent given that June. It first flew on July 28th, 1944, only 13 months after commencement of the design details, and the calculated performance was met most handsomely, manoeuvrability and climb were exceptional and the prototype reached 485 mph.

Production started in late 1944, the first aircraft, PX210, was delivered to Boscombe Down on Feb. 28th, 1945. Production of the Fighter version finished in June 1952, a total of 211 were delivered to the RAF.

The first prototype Sea Hornet flew just after the Fighter-version went into production, on April 19th, 1945, and this version became the first Royal Navy twin-engined longe-range escort strike fighter. These served until 1956, and a total of 198 Sea Hornet variants, including the PR and NF's were built.

They were very light and strong, carried either 2x 1,000 lb bombs or 8x RP's or 2x 200 gal fuel tanks, along with their 4x 20mm Hispano cannons. In the period of their service, they broke speed and distance records and were known for their awesome Air Displays that they attended, often in company with jets, the very aircraft that replaced them. They were the last piston-engined fighters of the RAF and R. Navy.......[If only they'd hatched them with the Mosquitos !!!! ]


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 22, 2005)

Wow1 Thanks Gemhorse


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 22, 2005)

While I think about it, there is another aircraft I've mentioned in a past posting, one of the Hawker Fury F.2/43 prototypes, as they tried them all with different engines...
LA610 was the 2nd prototype, first flown with a Griffon 85, driving a Rotol 6-blade contra-rotating prop; they then put a Sabre VII in, with a 4-blade Rotol, and this was the fastest of all the Hawker piston-engined fighters, with a top speed in the region of 485 mph. Why they never settled on this version I'm not sure, but it was definately the 'best-looking' variant....I've only a grainy pic of it, but she's a compact, grunty beast......

Also, many thanks to RG for those real neat pics, especially the MB5...There's an aircraft that was really unique, and I've an article in the March 2002 'Aeroplane' about John Marlin, a retired Rockwell aerospace worker, whose building a replica MB5 at Stead Field, near Reno, Nevada, using a 1,900 hp Griffon 58 from a Shackleton. Perhaps someone's heard about it, he must be progressing well with it now.........

And also, a special thanks to Adler for the Gotha one's, I've been aware that the Smithsonian got one of the prototypes but have never seen it before...awesome!...I do hope they restore it one of these days, I believe Northrop made great use of it in their research that lead to their Flying-Wings, it's a topic I'm particuarly fascinated with....We may have been in real strife if Germany had got them up n' going during the War !......

Cheers


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2005)

that just looks wrong..........


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 23, 2005)

Yeah well, it's not the best of pics, but outa all of the 'heavy' Hawkers', it's certainly the more streamlined, which may have done something for it's better performance.... - Unfortunately, I don't know any more about it's development details, other than that particular configuration was to be used as a 'test structure', the last out of a total of six F.2/43 prototypes of which the others were specifically allocated engine-types; [2 fitted with Griffons; 2 with Centaurus XXII's and one with a Centaurus XII.] - With the end of the War approaching, orders for Furies were further reduced, concentrating on the Naval requirement of the Sea Fury.. I can understand finding other variants more appealing, although the Griffons definately don't look at home in a Hawker's design, compared to Sabres and Centaurus's.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2005)

yeah the sea fury and fury truely are amazingly good looking birds..........


----------



## Smokey (Apr 23, 2005)

The Mitsubishi A7M Reppu (Hurricane) single-seat carrier-based fighter was intended by the famous aircraft designer Jiro Horikoshi to be the successor to the A6M Zero-sen fighter.

Even as early as 1940, Jiro Horikoshi was fully aware that he had better start working on the successor to his fabulous Zero fighter. He envisaged an aircraft similar in overall configuration to the Zero but utilizing the much more powerful Mitsubishi NK9A eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, which was then under development. A 17-Shi specification for the aircraft was issued by the Japanese Navy on July 6, 1942. A maximum speed of 379 mph at 19,685 feet was called for, and the maneuverability was to be at least equal to that of the A6M3 Model 32.

However, In September of 1942 the Japanese Navy insisted that the aircraft be designed around the less-powerful Nakajima NK9K Homare 22 radial. Since the Navy signed the checks, Horikoshi reluctantly agreed. 

The A7M1 prototype flew for the first time on May 6, 1944, test pilot Eisaku Shibamaya being at the controls. Test pilots reported that the A7M1 handled extremely well, and that the use of the combat flaps made the A7M1 JUST AS MANEUVERABLE AS THE ZERO. However, they also reported that the aircraft was significantly underpowered for its weight.

Soon after this, the Japanese Navy authorized Horikoshi to begin work on the A7M2 version. This was to be powered by the Mitsubishi MK9A radial, which was the engine that HORIKOSHI HAD WANTED ALL ALONG. The MK9A had a larger diameter than the Homare 22, which required a complete redesign of the forward fuselage. The first A7M2 prototype flew on October 13, 1944, and initial tests indicated that high altitude performance was much better, with maximum speed being 390 mph at 21,655 feet. Service ceiling was 35,760 feet and an altitude of 19,685 feet could be reached in 6 minutes 7 seconds. The armament consisted of four wing-mounted 20-mm cannon.

However, the Japanese aircraft industry was in desperate straits at this stage in the war. The production of the Mitsubishi NK9A engine was delayed by a disastrous earthquake which struck the Nagoya area in December of 1944. Massive B-29 raids followed shortly thereafter, which caused additional production delays. The second A7M2 prototype was destroyed in a landing accident, and three other prototypes were destroyed on the ground during American raids. Only three of the seven prototypes that were built remained in flying condition by the end of the Pacific War, and only one production aircraft had been completed.

The A7M2 was assigned the Allied code name Sam. So far as I am aware, the Reppu never saw any combat. 
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a7mbau.html

http://www.hlj.com/product/FNMFB-11
http://home.interlink.or.jp/~katoh00/kaigun/reppu/reppu.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2005)

I think it would have been neat to see the Henschel Hs-132 come into service. It was to be the worlds first jet dive bomber. Now here is the real question. *What do you need a jet dive bomber for?* That is why I think it would have been interesting to see what it could do. I dont think it would have been effective but just interesting.

Origin: Henschel Flugzeugwerke AG
Type: Dive bomber
Models: V1, V2 and A, B, and C
Engine: BMW 003A-1 turbojet
Thrust: 1,760lb (800kg)

Dimensions:
Span: 7.20m (23 ft. 7.5 in.)
Length: 8.90m (29 ft. 2.5 in.)
Height: 3.00m (9 ft. 10 in.)

Weights:
Empty: not known
Loaded: 7,496lb (3400kg)

Performance:
Maximum speed with bomb: 435mph (700km/h)
Clean: 485mph (780km/h)
Range at 32,800 ft (10,000m): 696 miles (1120km)

Armament:
A Model: None
B Model: Two 20mm MG 151 Cannon

The Hs 132 was begun in early 1944 with the concept of taking advantage of the fact that a prone pilot could better resist g forces. The advantages of a reduced frontal area was also not lost; it was thought allied anti-aircraft gunners would not be able to hit such a small fast target. The 132A series carried no guns. The 132B series, with the more powerful Jumo 004 engine was to be armed with two 20mm MG 151 cannon as well as the bomb. There were to be more variants but the factory was overrun before flight testing could begin.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 24, 2005)

8) 
Cool plane. I even think that the plane with BMW-003 E would perform better than expected. Reasons?
Speed: Hs-132 has a lighter weight without payload compared to the He-162. Both planes field the same engine and a very close airframe.
critical Mach speed: without the canopy, the fuselage has less drag than the He-162, while most other aspects remains the same (wing, tail...), indicating a critical Mach speed better than He-162
Acceleration (without bombload): It remains often unnoted that the BMW-003 E has 800 kp static thrust and the possibility to overrew it for 30 sek. max. to 940 Kp. This is making the BMW-003 E more powerful than the Jumo-004 B (it also weights less). Plus, it has the advantage of beeing a more reliable powerplant.
Avaiability: Many tooling parts of the He-162 line could be used for this plane, too.
But what they really need for this plane is a good computing bombsight (Askania finished development of it in february 1945) for high speed bomb drops or R4M based air to ground rockets.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2005)

I still do not think it would have been effective though. A Jet dive bomber?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 25, 2005)

Can you say "dirt nap" ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2005)

dirt nap?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 25, 2005)

It would be very easy to get going too fast and end up flying into the dirt while trying to dive bomb using a jet. The thing would have to have huge dive brakes since it has no prop to slow it in a dive, but that would kind of defeat the purpose since it would then be vulnerable to enemy fire when in its run.

Its pilots would be known for taking dirt naps 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there has ever been a jet dive bomber?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 25, 2005)

yes the Hs-132, the info for which is posted above..............


----------



## delcyros (Apr 25, 2005)

Dive bombing would be silly, no doubt. What I had in my mind was kind of an shallow dive with high speed (max. Mach 0.86 at low altitude) to avoid aircover and to make aiming for anti aircraft fire more difficult. Fly in, deliver your payload (hopefully rockets) and disappear...


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 25, 2005)

What do you all think of the next group of Rockets that the Germans had to come on line?

I still would like the B-32


----------



## delcyros (Apr 26, 2005)

Yup, the B-32 is great! 
What are you thinking of? Defensive rockets or offensive ones?

SAM Projects up to prototype stage:

1.) Rheinmetall F-25 -1942-1944-
(subsonic remotery controlled interception missle)
2.) Rheinmetall F-55 -1944-
(supersonic remotery controlled interception missle)
3.) C-2 Wasserfall -1943-1945-
(A-4 based supersonic passively giuded interception missle with ~68 miles range)
4.) Hs-117 (177?) Schmetterling -1942-1945-
(subsonic passively guided interception missle)
5a.) Rheintochter R-1 -1942-1945
(subsonic remotery controlled interception missle)
5b.) Rheintochter R-3 -1944-1945-
(transsonic passively guided interception missle)

All prototypes have been tested, Hs-Schmetterling and C-2W choosen for further development (later including R-3, also). Development abandoned by at least february 1945 (because of the stage of war), rumors that C-2W and Hs-Schmetterling have been succesfully tested used against bombers cannot be confirmed. Developmet included acustic/infrared guidiance systems and approximation fuzes. Maybe Adler can help with more details?
In my view the C-2W was the most envisioned design, bearing some very advanced construction details and providing wide area protection. On the other hand the Hs-Schmetterling could have been ready much sooner. Speer wrote later that his biggest strategical mistake was to favour the A4 instead of the C-2W, from which 3 times as many in the same time with the same manpower and ressources could have been made.
Or are you going to ask for A-9/A-10?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 26, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> It would be very easy to get going too fast and end up flying into the dirt while trying to dive bomb using a jet. The thing would have to have huge dive brakes since it has no prop to slow it in a dive, but that would kind of defeat the purpose since it would then be vulnerable to enemy fire when in its run.
> 
> Its pilots would be known for taking dirt naps
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there has ever been a jet dive bomber?



There hasnt. The Hs-132 was not actually completed.


----------



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

no they were never actually completed but it did exist atleast in part.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 26, 2005)

The Hs-132 was completed it just never flew. The picture was taken by the Russians when they captured it. I agree though that dive bombing with a jet was worthless and stupid as I posted above.



RG_Lunatic said:


> Its pilots would be known for taking dirt naps



We like to refer to as being a Lawn Dart!


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 26, 2005)

Lawn Darts! some of the prop pilots became such. 

As for Rockes, I have not read much on the deffensive side, but man the A-10 would have frightful. But to think if Speer did gofor the C-2W what would the 1,000 plane raids be like? Would they have been done? Or even the rocket attacks on London?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 26, 2005)

Before the rocket attacks on London could have been a real threat the Germans would have need better targeting systems.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 26, 2005)

In many ways the V-1 flying bomb was far more effective than the A-4 /V-2 was. Just think of the fighter squads whhad to be relocated to Britian in order to deal with the thread or the huge numbers of anti aircraft guns along the coastline and London. They could have contributed much to the curse of war if deployed to the continent. Against the V-2 there was simply no protection, so there wasn´t that much a need to enforce the defense.
The US copied the V-1 quite good and in numbers for a possible assault on Japan. 
The A-9/A-10 was in stage of construction studies, not further. There have been some shots of A-4b (...predecessor of A-9 stage) in early 1945 but that´s it. Prototypes are not to be estimated prior to 1946. There are also some architectural relicts, which have to be connected with the A-9/A-10 project. But it´s the same, without nuke and effective guidiance system, as pointed out by Adler, the big missile doesn´t make much sense. Impressive? Yes. But a huge waste of time, ressources and manpower.
The C-2W carried 220 lbs HE, so I estimate that even near hits would have been quite fatal to the structure of bombers, in case the approximation fuze works properly. I haven´t seen any proof for this and cannot confirm the number either but I think we have 15.000 A-4 build, that are around 35.000 - 55.000 C-2W if Speer would have favoured this defensive weapon. What if? Think of 500 deployed in a certain space around a vital structure (take Berlin for example) and ready to intercept bombers. Estimate that no more than 300 could be fired in time (absolutely not sure in this). In tests without approximation fuzes around 50% of the shots failed to hit the target (mostly remotery controlled and under research conditions), in case of effective use I estimate about 70-80% fail to hit, but that are still 60 - 90 bombers taken down by SAM. In case of a 1000 bomber attack we would face 6-9% losses by SAM and additional 2-5% by Flak and interceptors, raising the total loss rate (inclusive accidents) to up to 9-14%. Any sustainable loss rate of bomberforces above 10 % is hard to replace, questioning the continuing strategic day light bomber campaign....


----------



## evangilder (Apr 27, 2005)

Just the 60-90 number alone is horrible, that would be 600-900 men! How long could losses like that be sustained?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2005)

> Against the V-2 there was simply no protection, so there wasn´t that much a need to enforce the defense



this is not strictly true, many spitfires took part in "operation Big Ben", the details of which of only recently become available, in which they set out to destry V2 rockets before they were launched and i can think of no better time to stop them............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2005)

I think what he is saying is defence for a V-2 in flight. There was nothing you could do. But hitting them before they launched is the only way as you said Lanc.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 27, 2005)

Delcyros,

If the German's could have built a working "approximation fuse", they'd not have needed a fancy missile to defend Berlin. The lack of a proximimity fuse was probably the biggest single technical failure of the German's during WWII.

Why would you then assume they'd have one for this weapon?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2005)

The whole point of this topic sort of is a 'What If' RG, that is what he is implying. He is not saying it was going to have happened.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 27, 2005)

Well than the "what if" to consider in this area is...

WHAT IF THE GERMAN'S HAD DEVELOPED A PROXIMITY FUSE BY MID 1943 OR EARLY 1944?

No need to get off into complex SAM's, that alone would have crushed both the RAF and USAAF bomber offensives.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Apr 28, 2005)

Dear RG,

There have been at least 10 subtypes of C-2W (W-1 - W-10) SAM, W-8 and W-10 exlusively with approximation fuzes (abandoned by Speer). The reason for this was the competition of SAM-projects to choose the best SAM for further development in september 1944 by 2. Batterie FLAK Lehr- und Versuchsabteilung. During these tests WITHOUT approximation fuzes 50% of the fired C-2 hit the target plane in 40.000 ft physicly. All SAM have been remotery controlled. The "what if" scenario doesn´t take working fuzes into account, I rated that 20-30% of the SAM would hit the target, only (physicly). One of the conclusions of the competitive shots in september was that a working approximation fuze is needed. Moreso because of the large HE warhead, which caused fatal blast effects at distances up to 100 ft. You are completely right if you underline that such a fuze wasn´t ready in time (I believe that the acustic approximation fuze haven´t worked properly at any time...). There have been two major directions in approximation fuzes, the acustic one, I have already mentioned and an Funkmeß (radar)-based, but none of them have been produced in numbers for the C-2W project by wars end (call it Luftwaffe´46, if needed), I even doubt that R&D have been finisched.
There is also some evidence that C-2W have been used against bombers on at least one time. Nowarra, based on statements of Speer, mentioned that around 50 C-2W have been succesfully used in february and march 1945 against heavy bombers. (H.J. Nowarra, die deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-1945, vol. 4 (Koblenz 1993), page 65.)I tried to find any confirmations about it, but there is no proof beside of an article by Gröger in a local newspaper, who said to be member of Flarak Versuchsabteilung and who claims that C-2W and Hs-Schmetterling have been desperately used by this unit in the closing months of ww2 against heavy bombers in small numbers. He also claims that they succeed in downing bombers with these weapons. However, he didn´t wrote any concrete times and specifc local positions, so I cannot verify them. Gröger faded away in the late 90´s.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 28, 2005)

Interesting stuff. I did not know too much about the C-2W's.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 28, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Dear RG,
> 
> There have been at least 10 subtypes of C-2W (W-1 - W-10) SAM, W-8 and W-10 exlusively with approximation fuzes (abandoned by Speer). The reason for this was the competition of SAM-projects to choose the best SAM for further development in september 1944 by 2. Batterie FLAK Lehr- und Versuchsabteilung. During these tests WITHOUT approximation fuzes 50% of the fired C-2 hit the target plane in 40.000 ft physicly. All SAM have been remotery controlled. The "what if" scenario doesn´t take working fuzes into account, I rated that 20-30% of the SAM would hit the target, only (physicly). One of the conclusions of the competitive shots in september was that a working approximation fuze is needed. Moreso because of the large HE warhead, which caused fatal blast effects at distances up to 100 ft. You are completely right if you underline that such a fuze wasn´t ready in time (I believe that the acustic approximation fuze haven´t worked properly at any time...). There have been two major directions in approximation fuzes, the acustic one, I have already mentioned and an Funkmeß (radar)-based, but none of them have been produced in numbers for the C-2W project by wars end (call it Luftwaffe´46, if needed), I even doubt that R&D have been finisched.
> There is also some evidence that C-2W have been used against bombers on at least one time. Nowarra, based on statements of Speer, mentioned that around 50 C-2W have been succesfully used in february and march 1945 against heavy bombers. (H.J. Nowarra, die deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-1945, vol. 4 (Koblenz 1993), page 65.)I tried to find any confirmations about it, but there is no proof beside of an article by Gröger in a local newspaper, who said to be member of Flarak Versuchsabteilung and who claims that C-2W and Hs-Schmetterling have been desperately used by this unit in the closing months of ww2 against heavy bombers in small numbers. He also claims that they succeed in downing bombers with these weapons. However, he didn´t wrote any concrete times and specifc local positions, so I cannot verify them. Gröger faded away in the late 90´s.



I find it very hard to believe remote controlled SAM's could successfully kill such a high flying target with any reliablility. How would the ground observer know when the SAM was within 100 feet of the target - there would be no effective depth/range perception. Actually physically hitting the target would be even more difficult, there are so many factors involved in plotting such an intercept.

I did some work on guidance systems in the mid-late 80's, and I find the idea of remote controlled targeting of this nature pretty absurd. It's hard to do even when you have a radar lock on the target.

The German's had just managed to copy the cavity magnitron in 1945, and their copy was weak because of the lack of magnet technology. I don't think it was possible for them to make a radio proximity fuse small enough to fit in a shell or even a missile that would have nearly sufficient range to be effective until the magnet technology was developed.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 29, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> find it very hard to believe remote controlled SAM's could successfully kill such a high flying target with any reliablility. How would the ground observer know when the SAM was within 100 feet of the target - there would be no effective depth/range perception. Actually physically hitting the target would be even more difficult, there are so many factors involved in plotting such an intercept.



Why do you find it so hard to do? It is done today still, I have actually seen it done and it was quite easy. If the Germans used a camara mounted to it then I dont see why it was so hard. It is the same idea in the UAV program and they have even shot down things fired from the UAV using remote control.


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 29, 2005)

How big were these C-2W's? To get to 40 000ft they would have to be big enough to carry abit of fuel. Did they have a launch motor and a sustainer motor or just a single motor? I've never heard of the C-2W's so forgive my ignorance.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 29, 2005)

Surface-to-Air Missiles
Enzian
The design of Enzian was inspired by the Me 163 rocket-powered fighter aircraft. Its delta-wing layout and relatively fat fuselage were similar. It had four boost engines and a sustainer. A small number was built, but problems with the engines and the guidance system were never resolved.

Feuerlilie
Anti-aircraft missile. It had a streamlined body and twin tail fins. It was powered by a rocket engine and had radio command guidance. Although development continued until the end of the war, it was never ready.

Hecht
Surface-to-air missile, in development until it was replaced by more promising designs in 1941.

Henschel Hs 117 Schmetterling
Of all experimental surface-to-air missiles, this one came closest to an operational weapons system. At the end of the war it was in production, but it was never operationally used. With a length of 4.29m, it was a relatively small missile. Its shape was that of a small aircraft, with a sustainer rocket engine in its body, and two boost engines, mounted above and below its fuselage. Range was about 32km, and it could be used against targets up to 10,000m high, although in such cases guidance problems were considerable: Aiming was visual, by means of a radio command link. There were also experiments with air-drops, with the use of radar for guidance, and with proximity fuses.

Rheintochter
This was a large anti-aircraft missile, rather crude in design. It had four tail fins, six fins on the center body, and four canard control fins. It had a boost engine in the tail, and a sustainer in the front fuselage. Control was again visual aiming with a radio command link. Rheintochter III was smaller than Rheintochter I, but had better performance. The project was abandoned in December 1944.

Taifun
This was an unguided anti-aircraft weapon. It was a simple, 1.93m long, spin-stabilized rocket with a 0.5kg warhead. Taifun was accelerated to Mach 3+, and could reach altitudes up to 15000m. It was intended to fire salvos of 30 rockets. At the end of the war it was in mass production.

from http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/gweapons.html

Henschel Hs.117
Schmetterling ("Butterfly") Surface to Air Missile.

Schmetterling was a surface-to-air, anti-aircraft missile designed to be small enough to be deployed by small teams of men without the need for heavy lifting equipment, and with a warhead with sufficient power to severely damage a B-17 enemy bomber with a proximity burst.

Designed by Professor H. Wagner, and developed by F. Henschel under his guidance, Schmetterling was on the drawing board comparatively early in the war. It comprised a liquid fuel, rocket-powered, winged missile with a warhead, launched with the aid of solid fuel boosters from a special firing rig.







Wagner's initial proposals were for a winged, powered, air launched, "stand-off" anti-ship missile, in competition with Dr. Kramer's free-falling Fritz X. Out of the series of weapons which Henschel derived via the Hs.293, the 1941 Hs.297 project was conceived as an anti-aircraft rocket. However, at this time, the defence rocket concept was not a requirement for the Reichsluftministerium and development was halted after two months' work as "uninteresting".

With a radical change in the fortunes of the war, defence weapons became a priority, and under the new designation 8-117, the Schmetterling project was reactivated in March 1943.

Schmetterling was designed to fly subsonically to target, but close to the speed of sound, at a constant mach number. Tested in wind tunnels at DVL and AVA, the most satisfactory design was a symmetrical shape with a circular cross section fuselage, swept back wings with a NACA 0012-0,825-40 profile, a tapered tailplane and a fin. Two solid booster rockets were used to launch the missile from the firing unit and raise it to flying speed, at which point the liquid-fuelled rocket motor was used to fly the missile to target, under radio control from an observer. A proximity fuse detonated the warhead. 



from http://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/missiles/hs117.htm


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 29, 2005)

Wow! I had no idea these things existed! Thanks for the info Krazi


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

Check out this Italian Medium, the CANT Z.1018 'Leone':



> Arguably the finest bomber produced in Italy during World War II and fully a match for any medium bomber produced by Germany or the Allies, the Leone (lion) appeared too late to influence Italy's fate in the war and was therefore built only in very modest numbers. The design was the last by Filippo Zappata before he left CANT for Breda, and also his first airplane of all-metal construction. The Z.1018 embodied the lessons of all of Zappata's previous warplanes for CANT. The Z.1018 was a very clean design of the classic cantilever low-wing monoplane type with two wing-mounted engines, tailwheel landing gear incorporating main units that retracted into the rear of the engine nacelles, and a glazed nose incorporating the bombardier station. The first prototype was basically an aerodynamic test machine, and differed from its successors in being of all-wood construction with a tail unit that comprised a dihedraled tailplane carrying endplate vertical surfaces.
> 
> The prototype made its maiden flight in 1940 and was soon followed by five more prototypes of all-metal construction with lengthened fuselage, the cockpit moved forward from the original position over the wing, and a revised tail unit incorporating a single vertical surface. These prototypes were used for the evaluation of a number of power plants including: two 1,500-hp Piaggio P.XII RC.35 radials, two 1,400-hp Piaggio P.XV RC.45 radials, two 1,400-hp Alfa Romeo 135 RC.32 Tornado radials and two 1,475-hp Fiat RA.1050 RC.58 Tifone inverted-Vee engines.
> 
> It was clear from the beginning of the flight test program that the performance of the Leone was so high that a production order was certain. This materialized in 1941 in the form of a contract for 300 aircraft to be powered by two Alfa Romeo 135 RC.32 or Piaggio P.XII RC.35 engines, depending on availability. In the event that the Alfa Romeo radial engine was available in larger quantities, and production started in 1943 with a powerplant of two such engines. By the time of the Italian armistace in 9/43 however, deliveries had reached only 10 pre-production and five production warplanes, and a few of these machines saw limited service with the 101st Bombardment Group. Such was the potential of the basic design that two important derivatives were proposed. The first of these was a heavy fighter was a fixed forward armament of 7 20mm cannon as well as a defensive outfit based on three 12.7mm trainable machine guns. The second was a night-fighter with German Lichtenstein SN-2 radar with the antenna in the nose. Both these fighter models had an estimated maximum speed of 395 mph, but neither reached the hardware stage



Max Speed 323 MPH 
Ceiling 23,785 Ft 
Range 1,367 Miles 
Horsepower 1,350 HP per Engine 
Bomb Load 3,307 Lbs 
Crew 4 
Weight 8,800 Kg (11,500 Fully Loaded) 
Engine Alfa Romeo 135 RC.32 Tornado radial engines 
Armament Three 12.7mm machine guns, one fixed forward in starboard wing root, one in dorsal turret and one in ventral position, two 7.7mm machine guns in two beam positions 






http://www.comandosupremo.com/Cantz1018.html


Check out the armament of the proposed heavy fighter!


----------



## delcyros (Apr 29, 2005)

The size of the C-2W varies a bit. It depends on the model (W-1 - W 10), however that are really large SAMs. In general all C-2W are based on v. Brauns A-4, but smaller. The launching procedure is quite the same. From a mobile platform with vertical take off - one of the problems of this particular type is the fluid oxygen needed for it´s v. Braun designed rocket engine. It developed a huge amount of thrust but fluid oxygen is problematic to handle. This means that it would be ready for operational use at a more narrow timeframe. 
The first C-2W1 succesful launch of a C-2W was in late february 1944, it developed a speed at vertical climb to 2775 Km/h (Mach 2.6 at 35.000 ft)and a range of 40 km. Later version increased the operational range of the C-2W (7,8,10) to up to 100 Km. 
C-2W5 take part into the competition of sept. length: 7,765 m (~26 ft), diameter: 0,88 m (close to 3 ft.)
C-2W10 latest and most advanced version of C-2W, which actually was tested, length: 6,128 m (~20 ft.), diameter: 0,70 m (~2,3 ft)


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 29, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > find it very hard to believe remote controlled SAM's could successfully kill such a high flying target with any reliablility. How would the ground observer know when the SAM was within 100 feet of the target - there would be no effective depth/range perception. Actually physically hitting the target would be even more difficult, there are so many factors involved in plotting such an intercept.
> ...



It is done today so that means it could be done in 1945? You do realize that the transistor was not invented until the 60's right? That only the USA had a digital computer in WWII and it was the size of an autotorium?

Have you seen the state of the art in cathod ray tubes, television cameras, and transmission in those days? It would not be easy to hit a fast moving target at high altitude at all! The camera would be generating a lot of noise and the resolution would be crap.

And if it did work, it would have been very be easy to jam.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Apr 29, 2005)

I don´t want to ignore the test results of remotery controlled missiles without better sources. They actually did it, RG. And there are lots of possibilities to determine the altitude: via directed radio (cross liniking, the Luftwaffe did it regularly in 1941 over Britian), via the same procedure like the Flak shells (needs the correct estimation of altitude prior to firing via radar), via acustic approximation or guiding (this method was frequently tested for the C-2W) and of course by passive radar guidiance or even infared technologies (all tested prior to wars end)
Another point is the jamming procedure. The FuG "Kehlheim" and "Straßburg" devices of the early SAM (for remotery controll) are quite in the same technological level like the devices of the Hs-293 guided missile or Fritz-X, which have been jammed succesfully. It is well possible to jam these SAM missiles succesfully. Question is how much electronic equippment a bomber can carry to defend itself. Esspecially in 1945, where electronics were big and heavy. The Hs-293 have been succesfully jammed by ships of destroyer size. On the other hand this would advance the development of independently controlled (radar and infrared) SAM, which was at wars end in construction resp. prototype (for night defense duties) stage. My estimations might not be historical but I stay with them. 6-9% bomber losses (I extrapolated the Hs-293 rates for training and combat sorties with remotery controlled anti ship missiles). I read in my books even higher shots to hit rates (close to 50% are estimated to hit under combat situations, but I don´t believe in them, this clearly is based on the sept. tests, but those tests doesn´t reflect real probabilities under combat circumstances as the Hs-293 records prove).


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 29, 2005)

I was only referring to jamming the TV signals. It would not take much to do that, the nature of the signal was such that it was very sensitive to jamming. You would only have to put out a small jamming signal infrequently to cause it to loose sync and then it would take several seconds (at least) to regain sync. Also, the distance between the reciever and the missile is increasing while the distance between the missile and the jammer is decreasing, so the closer it gets the less it takes to jam it. I doubt the broadcasting unit in those missiles could even send a signal 40,000 feet (7.5 miles) - it would have taken quite a bit of power to do so.

As for radar, again they lacked ALNICO magnets, thus the only way they could get strong enough magnets to make their radar unit work was to apply a lot of power to electro magnets - not very practical for a "portable" unit.

Acoustic - think about the dynamics of putting acoustic sensors on a fast moving missile - it's just not practical. First the noise of the engine would be a problem. Then there is the wind over the mic's. And finally there is the speed of the missile (which is going to be a good fraction of mach).

And as for infra-red it would not be able to get a lock until it got pretty damn close to the target. I suppose it is possible but guiding the missile into position to obtain a lock would still be a huge problem.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

I would have liked to see this Daimler-Benz in service


----------



## delcyros (Apr 29, 2005)

I read about no TV guidiance for any SAM, for Hs-293 only. 
The broadcasting unit of a SAM would require a lot of power to do so, agreed. But in all (actually done or known) tests it was not necessary to power it that much, since it only was a receiver. Emitter are based on the ground as far as I know (even for radar aim), it was planned to adopt any operational Radar site for aiming the missiles. They would follow the directed signal up to the point when infrared could redirect the missile. This procedure was tested in january and february 1945 frequently with C-2W10 and R-III with statisfying results. I have no sources about active homing of the SAM as advanced as this prototype stage.
Passive homing exclusively (plans for active homing have been for the C-2W12, which never left the drawing board), as far as I know.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 29, 2005)

As soon as the SAM sites were found, they would have been plastered with bombs though. Possibly low level Mossies


----------



## delcyros (Apr 29, 2005)

Anything the Mossi can´t do?
According to Gröger, they have been attacked quite frequently by low level fighters but without much succes. Keep in mind that all SAM are mobile and not fixed to a local position. I also have to underline that I made a mistake above. The spt. tests have not been against targets in 40.000ft, I reread an article, which states that there have been a specific demonstration of a C-2W destroying a target plane in almost 40.000 ft (12.000 m). The top operational altitude of the C-2W is given in most sources with 16.000 m (~53.000 ft). The general competition was between SAM against target planes in 8.000 m (~26.000 ft), only.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 29, 2005)

It's not really possible to move a SAM from one side of the country to the other to get it in in position for a raid, they'd probably be on the coast in the radar chain gaps. A couple of cookies and boom, no more SAM


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 29, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> It's not really possible to move a SAM from one side of the country to the other to get it in in position for a raid, they'd probably be on the coast in the radar chain gaps. A couple of cookies and boom, no more SAM



Why did not the Mossie knock out all the German radar sites? There were less of these than there would have been of mobile SAM sites.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 29, 2005)

delcyros said:


> I read about no TV guidiance for any SAM, for Hs-293 only.
> The broadcasting unit of a SAM would require a lot of power to do so, agreed. But in all (actually done or known) tests it was not necessary to power it that much, since it only was a receiver. Emitter are based on the ground as far as I know (even for radar aim), it was planned to adopt any operational Radar site for aiming the missiles. They would follow the directed signal up to the point when infrared could redirect the missile. This procedure was tested in january and february 1945 frequently with C-2W10 and R-III with statisfying results. I have no sources about active homing of the SAM as advanced as this prototype stage.
> Passive homing exclusively (plans for active homing have been for the C-2W12, which never left the drawing board), as far as I know.



That kind of system is much more reasonable. However, the radar signal is fairly easily defeated with chaff or towed reflector strips, and the infra red would be very easily defeated using flares. Also, a homing missile/bomb to attack those radar sights would have been very easy to develop because of the focused nature of the beam.

My point is simply that I do not think this technology was going to put much of a dent into the 1000+ bomber raids of 1945.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Apr 30, 2005)

One thing you have to think about though is that for the first few encounters, the guidance systems and technology of the enemy are unknown. It takes time to get that information before counter measures are developed. How many aircraft would be destroyed before the counter measures are developed?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 30, 2005)

By the same token, with such a complex weapon, getting it working effectively in actual combat conditions would take time. During that time countermeasures would be developed. And in this case the countermeasures are much simpler than the weapon they are countering, so most likely they would be developed quickly.

Remember, it took the British something like two years to develop their radar bombing systems such as Oboe and H2S, and the German's only about 2-4 months to defeat it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 30, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > RG_Lunatic said:
> ...




And here again you let my whole point blow right over your head. What I was saying is that with tv guided missles (saying that is what they used) it was technically possible and not as hard and difficult to intercept and shoot down an aircraft as you claim it to be.

Wheee right over your head again or in the left ear and out the right.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 30, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> By the same token, with such a complex weapon, getting it working effectively in actual combat conditions would take time. During that time countermeasures would be developed. And in this case the countermeasures are much simpler than the weapon they are countering, so most likely they would be developed quickly.
> 
> Remember, it took the British something like two years to develop their radar bombing systems such as Oboe and H2S, and the German's only about 2-4 months to defeat it.
> 
> ...



Agreed, it takes time to develop the weapon, but there were weapons that were introdiuced by the Germans that the allies had never seen before they were used in combat. My point is, yes, counter measures can be developed, but it takes time to figure out what the technology being used in the new weapon is. Then the counter can be developed. A few months time maybe? That's little comfort to the poor bastards that have to face the new threat. If the weapon is severe enough, it can put a serious dent in your operational plans while a counter is developed. 

The bomber groups were still taking serious losses towards the end. There comes a point when commanders have to look at the losses and determine if it is viable, or a meat grinder. Even crudely guided, inaccurate missiles can have a serious effect on morale.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 30, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And here again you let my whole point blow right over your head. What I was saying is that with tv guided missles (saying that is what they used) it was technically possible and not as hard and difficult to intercept and shoot down an aircraft as you claim it to be.
> 
> Wheee right over your head again or in the left ear and out the right.



No it is you who is missing the point. Just because today's tv guided weapons could do this kind of thing (and that is questionable) does not mean that such a weapon was within the reasonable reach of WWII Germany. Modern TV is many many generations more developed than what was available in 1945 Germany. It includes computer enhancment and both gyro and digital image stabalization that were not even dreamed of at that time.

Do you realize how much more complex a TV signal is than an audio signal? Transmitting such a signal more than 5 miles clean enough from a relatively small missile to give a good picture would be very difficult using the technology of the time which would have been very fragile, and supplying sufficient power would require huge batteries or a separate generator.

And then there is the issue of vibration. The camera on the missile is going to be subject to tremendous vibrations, greatly limiting its reliability to work at all and distorting the image.

Finally, TV is 2 dimensional, so it gives NO DEPTH PERCEPTION. The cathode ray tubes of 1945 were tiny. So the ability of someone to even see the target from anything beyond close range on a tiny black and white screen with very poor contrast would be extremely limited. Just finding an enemy target that is not trying to let you hit it by flying exactly where you want them when you want them too would be difficult.

Then, let's assume the missile is going 500 mph strait up and the target is going 250 mph level. This gives a combine velocity of 560 mph, or 821 fps. Since the weapon has to be detonated within about 100 feet of the target to be successful, this means the operator would have detonate the thing within the right approximately _*quarter second*_ window. And that would be almost beyond human capability even using modern high resolution computer enhanced equipment - _it was virtually impossible given what they had!_

So don't give me this _"Wheee right over your head again or in the left ear and out the right."_ condescension when it is clear it is *you* who does not understand what you're talking about!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 30, 2005)

Fascinating, I had no idea they were dabbling that far into it, I only knew about the Fritz X and the V rockets.....Good thing Hitler stuffed it for them, or we may have had some real problems.......


----------



## Anonymous (May 1, 2005)

Gemhorse said:


> Fascinating, I had no idea they were dabbling that far into it, I only knew about the Fritz X and the V rockets.....Good thing Hitler stuffed it for them, or we may have had some real problems.......



These "wonder weapons" were a big part of how Hitler "stuffed it for them". To win the war you had to produce proven weapons in large quantities, not unproven wonder weapons that don't work or work poorly in small quantities. New and better technology was of course desirable, but not at the cost of sufficent quantities of existing weapons that are sufficient to the task.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

and believe they worked out that, one average, only one londoner was killed per V-1 launched (most didn't even reach london)...........


----------



## delcyros (May 1, 2005)

I see the discussion is going on. There are a few points to reply for me:
The V-1 was -as stated above- not that a bad weapon. Military effectifness by secondary effects (enforced defense), for comparably low costs.
The whole discussion is just a "what if", nothing else, this has to be underlined. However, it is based on Speers statements, so it has a considerable probability. 
The possibility to relocate SAM-sites is quite high, in fact it is even more difficult in terms of weight and mobility to transfer a 10.5 cm Flak gun than a C-2W. The Schmetterling or R-III SAM is even more mobile (because they don´t use fluid oxygen), the C-2W provides more range and performance. Esspecially the two stage R-I and R-III, from which specimen have fallen into soviet hands at test sites of the baltic coast is suspect to be the base of mobile SU SAM developments of the 50´s. 
To argue that low level fighters could easily deal with the whole SAM thread is kind of nonsense, since the SAM are not divided from the FLAK, and even light 2 cm quad Flak provides some defense against low level fighter. To think all SAM sites could be destroyed is rather dreaming than anything else, for such duties you need specialized units, like the Wild Weasels, with more promising technology. Do you think the destruction of a few SAM-sites would justify the losses of Mosquitos+crewman, which had to fly those missions?
The destruction capabilities of SAM are different. The Schmetterling has around 23 Kg HE (51 lbs) average and max. 60 Kg (132 lbs) HE (M-Kopf). The F-25 had 17 Kg HE (38 lbs) and the F-55 138 Kg HE (304 lbs). The Rheintochter usually had around 25 Kg HE (55 lbs). C-2W is stated above. This should make calculations easyer, if needed. Keep in mind that an C-2W explosion in 100 ft distance would ensure destruction of a B-17 (ground tested) this makes a global kill zone with around 300 ft. diameter (because of the airplanes size) and a B-17 in it´s centre. Flying in very tight formations with this thread in mind is kind of suizide. 
Counter mesures against SAM (resp. their radarsites) are possible, and would have surely taken into effect after some time. However this would generate some kind of "race" as we can see in the technological "race" between nightfighter and nightbomber. It is speculation to name a winner in this race. And it cannot be denied that SAM would make it much more difficult for the heavy bombers. The technology of some SAM is proven by means of test units, not on a larger base. However, if you compare the V-2 (A-4) and SAM-projects, you could come to the clue that the mass production of tens of thousends SAM is more reasonable than the mass production of A-4. To be more concrete in terms of costs and manpower: To build a single C-2W you need between 7.000 RM and 10.000 RM and between a third and a fourth of the construction time of a single A-4. A single 10.5 cm Flakshell costs around 100 RM, only. But if you calculate that you need an average of 4.000 Flakgrenades to hit a B-17 and an average of 4 C-2W to hit it, you could see the benefit. Even if it needs 20 instead of 4 C-2W (you can take any other SAM, since the C-2W is the most expensive and complicated one) to hit a bomber you save 50% costs and manhours. On the other hand, of course, a 10.5 cm can be directed against other targets, also...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > And here again you let my whole point blow right over your head. What I was saying is that with tv guided missles (saying that is what they used) it was technically possible and not as hard and difficult to intercept and shoot down an aircraft as you claim it to be.
> ...



*No again you are missing my point*. All I was saying is that it was possible. *I did not say that it was likely*. Second of all this is still *What if *type of convo and that is what is being covered, if you do not like *BUD OUT!*. You really do have a hard time understanding and seeing what people are trying to say because it goes against anything that you could ever possibly believe.

Third you say _because today's tv guided weapons could do this kind of thing (and that is questionable) _. Well actually I have a friend who I used to fly with and now he is a UAV pilot and I actually stood behind him and watched him shoot down a drone from his UAV using TV guided weapons. *So you know what it is possible and you do not know what you are talking about!*



RG_Lunatic said:


> So don't give me this _"Wheee right over your head again or in the left ear and out the right."_ condescension when it is clear it is *you* who does not understand what you're talking about!



Before you go around and try and insult me you fricken LUNATIC! Read up on your own stuff. I have seen it happen. You know a hell of a lot less about what you are talking about. Dont accuse me or insult me again. I am not going to get into another argument again, so if you are not going to act like an adult (which for you is questionable) please take your convo some place else!

=S=

Lunatic[/quote][/i]


----------



## Anonymous (May 1, 2005)

You are a trip Adler. First you insult me, then when I insult you back you get upset.

You said:



> Well actually I have a friend who I used to fly with and now he is a UAV pilot and I actually stood behind him and watched him shoot down a drone from his UAV using TV guided weapons.



That is not the same thing at all. You just don't get it. First off, the system he used would have had a high resolution digitally enhanced imaging system with gyro stabalization - not available in 1945 Germany. Secondly, it would have had a proximity fuse to detonate the weapon when it to the minimum distance from the target. Third, it would probably have had a more effective charge than the German SAM's of WWII. Fourth, the target was probably not flying at 250 mph nor conducting any kind of evasives or counter measures.

Unless you are specific about exactly what it was you saw your personal observation is meaningless. Most likely, you saw something but did not really understand what it was you were seeing.

Yes this is a "what if" thread, but that does not mean I cannot dispute unreasonable assertions.


----------



## Smokey (May 1, 2005)

Did you know the Sidewinder was at least partially based on a ww2 german infrared homing missile?


----------



## Anonymous (May 1, 2005)

Smokey said:


> Did you know the Sidewinder was at least partially based on a ww2 german infrared homing missile?



Have you looked at how ineffective the early sidewinder was?


----------



## Smokey (May 1, 2005)

Yeah, I read that the Sidewinder (and the Sparrow) were quite crap in Vietnam, but if massive resources had been invested by the Luftwaffe into this project early in the war, then it may have led to an IR heat seeking missile which was effective against relatively large, slow and clumsy aircraft like the B17, B24, Lancaster, Halifax, B29 etc rather than the slightly more agile MiG 17s, 19s and 21s seen over Vietnam.
It could have been carried by Me262s.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> You are a trip Adler. First you insult me, then when I insult you back you get upset.



First of all I was making a joke about the blowing past your head crap, if you cant take one that is fine but dont insult me!



RG_Lunatic said:


> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With all this crap you just wrote again what dont you understand that I am saying that it was technically possible and not as difficult as you made it out to be. I never said that it was likely to happen in WW2. Nor did I say the Germans would have been capable of it. So where do you get off, telling me that I dont know what I am talking about nor that what I have seen is meaningless?

Second dont tell me what I dont understand about what I have seen. All I said is that what I saw shows that it is possible. You said it was questionable and I said it was possible and that I have seen it.

LASTLY NOTHING AND I REPEAT NOTHING THAT ANYONE POSTS ON HERE ABOUT PERSONAL OBSERVANCE IS MEANINGLESS! You really have a way of pissing people off. Sometimes you can really post some great things and then other times you just need to get off of you high horse! 

*Now lets stop this personal argument here, it is not necessarry to take up space argueing here in a thread.*

*If you can not do so, then please take it some place else.*


----------



## Anonymous (May 1, 2005)

I am totally willing to drop the "insults", however you cannot claim your comment about blowing past my head or in one ear and out the other was a joke and not an insult.

As for the technical possiblity, sure it is possible. It is also possible that if you shoot a 22 strait up into the air that it will come down and hit you on the head and kill you - but that does not make such a shot a reasonable method of suicide.

As I showed you with the math, using a purely video based system the operator would have to trigger the weapon within about +/- 1/8th second of its minimum distance from the target to achieve a kill, unless he actually hit it. Not only that, but assuming the missile were to miss the target by 50 feet that time would be cut in half. This is beyond human capacity even with perfect modern video which of course is far far better than what was available in WWII Germany. Such an aiming system was reasonable against a large slow moving ship where the problem is reduced to two dimensions, but it was totally impracticle against an fast moving aircraft target where the problem is 3 dimensional.

You keep saying you are not arguing that it was a workable system in WWII, but if that is the case what is/was your point to begin with?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

> It is also possible that if you shoot a 22 strait up into the air that it will come down and hit you on the head and kill you - but that does not make such a shot a reasonable method of suicide.



surely it's easier to just shhot yourself directly??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

Yeah, I mean ive tried shooting straight up but it never hits me...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

because you're a crap shot.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

Thats a lie and you know it....Ive even trained myself to get good aim with the smaller, lighter rifle I have...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

did i fire that one??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

I dont think so...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

i aint taken the ol' rifle out for a while now.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

Me neither, though last time I did we filled up a can with car polish and watched it splatter...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

one way of gettin it over the whole car........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

Naw with shot it against wood, some pretty neat exit holes we had too 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

it's annoying, the only real place we have rats on the farm is around the straw near the cows an i'm not allowed to shoot near cows.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

Ah, we tried wasting a few birds but missed em all...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

maybe, you didn't miss the birds, but the birds missed the pellets??


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 1, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

Maybe...Martyn shot a horse though. He hit that


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

dude you ruined our flow!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

As well as shooting at birds and horses, I once shot a frog at point blank, not sure what happened to it though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2005)

at a guess it gave you a rather dissaproving look.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2005)

The horse did, the frog probably crawled off and died somewhere.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2005)

you mean he didn't give you a stern telling off for shooting him??


----------



## mosquitoman (May 2, 2005)

Nah, the frog would have croaked it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2005)

absolutely brilliant!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2005)

Simple but effective


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2005)

very effective, watch your keyboards people (not everyone will remember waht i'm talking about)


----------



## mosquitoman (May 2, 2005)

Hows about a Manchester with 2 Merlins, that would hav been good to see in service


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2005)

tough call, we would still have had to develop a 4 engined heavy so i dunno, what does everyone else think??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2005)

We had the Stirling...


----------



## mosquitoman (May 2, 2005)

good point, if only they'd have made the wings bigger


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2005)

which sucked!! and the halibag was only around in the Mk.I form, which wasn't anything to write home about, bomber command was still on the hunt for it's ultimate weapon.........


----------



## mosquitoman (May 2, 2005)

Yes, the Mossie


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2005)

I was thinking more along the line of the Whitley, but hey, there you go


----------



## mosquitoman (May 2, 2005)

The Whitley's good aswell


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2005)

Yeah I like the Whitley.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2005)

still not bomber command's ultimate weapon though was it........

i am now expecting an extremely witty reply from one of you.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2005)

Bomber commands ultimate weapon was either Brylcream of the kettle.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 2, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I am totally willing to drop the "insults", however you cannot claim your comment about blowing past my head or in one ear and out the other was a joke and not an insult.



It was a joke, believe what you wish. I really dont give a damn! 8) 



RG_Lunatic said:


> As for the technical possiblity, sure it is possible. It is also possible that if you shoot a 22 strait up into the air that it will come down and hit you on the head and kill you - but that does not make such a shot a reasonable method of suicide.



My whole point is that it was possible in a _what if type thread_, not that it was likely which I never stated.



RG_Lunatic said:


> As I showed you with the math, using a purely video based system the operator would have to trigger the weapon within about +/- 1/8th second of its minimum distance from the target to achieve a kill, unless he actually hit it. Not only that, but assuming the missile were to miss the target by 50 feet that time would be cut in half. This is beyond human capacity even with perfect modern video which of course is far far better than what was available in WWII Germany. Such an aiming system was reasonable against a large slow moving ship where the problem is reduced to two dimensions, but it was totally impracticle against an fast moving aircraft target where the problem is 3 dimensional.



Read above, and this still does not change the fact that I have seen a flying drone shot down using video guided weapons from a UAV. Who said the drone was fast moving anyhow? To be honest I dont know the speed of the drone that was shot down.



RG_Lunatic said:


> You keep saying you are not arguing that it was a workable system in WWII, but if that is the case what is/was your point to begin with?



Read above again! Did not say it was likely or that the Germans would have been able to do it.


----------



## delcyros (May 2, 2005)

Adler, I think, RG is right.
While it is true that TV-guidiance are technically possible, it was (as far as I know) never even considered a solution for the SAM-guidiance. Esspecially if you keep the C-2 or R-III speeds (1720 resp. 932 mp/h) in mind. 
The C-2 was launched vertically and climbed up to the target by passive radar directioning (ground based) . At shorter distances the infrared "Hamburg" device took controll and locked on heat signatures until it hit (or its fuze allow approximation destruction) the target. operational range was around 16 static miles (up to W-6). Later versions used a gyroscopecly directed vertical launch to 55.000 ft (60.000 ft in case of the R-I/R-III) until it burned all fuel and redirectioning by passive radar and the same infrared controll device (another tested infrared controll device is the "Madrid" system). This method had some advantages over the first:
1.) Without active burning it was not possible to detect the missile by means of optical solutions (still supersonic). Also, it will come from above, not from the ground, this would probably make investigations more difficult.
2.) The parabel like flightpath greatly increased the operational range (at tests to over 60 static miles in case of C-2 and 25 miles for the R-I /28 miles for the R-III).
However this flightpath will exclude the use of any TV-based guidiance system, as you see ( just try to find a bomber if you see clouds and earth on TV, no sky).


----------



## Anonymous (May 2, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > As I showed you with the math, using a purely video based system the operator would have to trigger the weapon within about +/- 1/8th second of its minimum distance from the target to achieve a kill, unless he actually hit it. Not only that, but assuming the missile were to miss the target by 50 feet that time would be cut in half. This is beyond human capacity even with perfect modern video which of course is far far better than what was available in WWII Germany. Such an aiming system was reasonable against a large slow moving ship where the problem is reduced to two dimensions, but it was totally impracticle against an fast moving aircraft target where the problem is 3 dimensional.
> ...



And you also do not know if it included a proximity detonator do you? Or what other guidance assisance was invovled for that matter. For all you know, the operator was just watching the weapon fly into the target under computer guidance, perhaps based upon the video feed, perhaps not.



DAVIDICUS said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > You keep saying you are not arguing that it was a workable system in WWII, but if that is the case what is/was your point to begin with?
> ...



But you very clearly implied that you thought they could. Go back and read what you originally wrote.


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 3, 2005)

Picked this up on another board.

_Schmetterling Hs-117 was another matter. It was already in production at the end of the war and post war soviet tests revealed it worked like a charm reaching all its design goals.

Its said to have out manuevered anything in the sky at that time. Given that it was simple radio guided , optically tracked system with a speed of around 600 mph , this should not come as a surprise. Soviets dropped this model too [R-105] due to the threat moving from piston bombers at 250-350mph and 25-32,000 ft right up to supersonic fighters and bombers flying at 50-60,000 ft, which Hs-117 could not deal with._


----------



## Anonymous (May 3, 2005)

That is what I would expect - an optically guided (from the ground) radio controlled missile.

Again though, if it had a kill radius of only 100 feet, it would be very hard to detonate it within that distance against a single target, though it would be effective if used in mass against formations.

And... that is not a very good source.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 3, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> And... that is not a very good source.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



Granted, but is a lead to any who want to do further research.


----------



## Anonymous (May 3, 2005)

Granted. That is acceptable lets just not be crediting this particular source as "valid until disproved", as we might a website with references.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (May 3, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Picked this up on another board.
> 
> _Schmetterling Hs-117 was another matter. It was already in production at the end of the war and post war soviet tests revealed it worked like a charm reaching all its design goals.
> 
> Its said to have out manuevered anything in the sky at that time. Given that it was simple radio guided , optically tracked system with a speed of around 600 mph , this should not come as a surprise. Soviets dropped this model too [R-105] due to the threat moving from piston bombers at 250-350mph and 25-32,000 ft right up to supersonic fighters and bombers flying at 50-60,000 ft, which Hs-117 could not deal with._



The HS117 is discussed in todays "Wings over the Word/Wings of the Luftwaffe" which covered the various German missiles and rockets. It was guided by a team of two, one using an optical system to track the missile, and another using a joystick to guide it according to instructions from the first. Over 80 test launches, including firings at actual Allied bombers were conducted and not one successful hit was scored on test or enemy targets. Tests began in late 1942 and it was abandon in 1944. It had to detonate within 50 feet of the target to have a good chance of scoring a kill.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Adler, I think, RG is right.
> While it is true that TV-guidiance are technically possible, it was (as far as I know) never even considered a solution for the SAM-guidiance.



I am not denying that fact. I have repeated over and over that it was only technically possible and that it was not likely.



RG_Lunatic said:


> But you very clearly implied that you thought they could. Go back and read what you originally wrote.



I know exactly what I read, you just choose not to understand what I am writing. *I have said that it was technically possible but not likely. *


----------



## delcyros (May 3, 2005)

The guidiance of the Hs-Schmetterling, that you describe, RG, can be confirmed in varoius sources. It was the main guidiance procedure up to the general SAM compare test at september 1944. Transmitted by FuG 230 "Kehl" and received by the FuG 203 "Straßburg". By that time it was considered well enough for subsonic missiles, like Enzian, Hs-Schmetterling and F-25. For faster ones (F-55, C-2W and R-I/III) it was estimated not statisfying, leading to the development of acustic/infrared and passive radar homing guidiances for these rockets. As far as I know, this did only happen on a very few prototype tests (C-2W-10,R-III) but never come to operational use. I would like to read that book. I suspect they used a valid US source of these missiles, a 4 pages report of excamination of C-2W (+additional papers of other SAM) in:
OP1666, "German Explosive Ordenance, Vol.1"
It´s worth a look. However, there is some evidence that they hit target planes (few airplanes (He-177 for demonstrations), most target objects have been BV-246 "Hagelkorn" with heading controll device and automatic level adjustion and other "drones" resp. Flakzielgeräte).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

Were there even any actual operational uses of SAM's during WW2 against an enemy? I dont think so but I am not sure.


----------



## delcyros (May 3, 2005)

This is a good question. I tried to find it out, but you can quite often find (try wasserfall +ewm at google) that around 50 (different SAM models) have been used with average succes against bombers. However, if you dig deeeper, you can trace it back to Lusar, Die deutschen Waffen und Geheimwaffen des zweiten Weltkrieges, (Munich 1959). and Hahn, Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres (?,?). From both, Lusar is more reasonable, since he also was member in the SAM developing project (with even an own but discarded SAM-project in 1943). But in general, Lusar is not a very reliable source, actually I do not like him in terms of (not) referring to independent sources. Beside of this we have the statements of Speer and Gröger, which are in my opinion valid but questionable (not prooven). The US report denie any operational use of any SAM by Germany in ww2. They do name the guidiance as the reason for this. If you ask me what I personally think, than I must admit that I don´t know. There is a possibilty but a very low probability for this. The question what effect the massive use of hundreds or even thousends of SAM would have gainst bombers is rather hypothetical than anything else. I do believe (but cannot proof) that a reliable system would be ready (in numbers) not earlier than 1946. Even with Speers statements that he should have favoured the C-2W instead of the A-4 is very wishful. The A-4 was far more ahead in development than the C-2W was.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

I have heard of accounts of Wasserfall use but none of them were confirmed. I can believe that on a few rare accounts they may have been used unsuccessfully though.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 3, 2005)

With all this talk on systems would lifting the ban on rockets and jets changed the war?

From reading the 105mm guns would have been frightful. Think of them on invasion beaches or say the Eastern frount?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

Ban on rockets and jets?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2005)

I was wondering the same?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 3, 2005)

During war I have never heard of a ban on conventional weapons.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 6, 2005)

Ok I thought that He had a ban on Rocket and jet development? Maybe it was in the late thirties?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2005)

Who Hitler? he never had such a ban.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2005)

quite the opposite in fact........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2005)

There was quite a large program however he could not keep his fingers out of it and let the people who knew what they were doing do there job.


----------



## Mosin (May 7, 2005)

Maybe he didnt ban the jet development ,but he did stop all projects early in the war that wouldnt immediatly effect the war effort. 
That was changed by late 41 early 42 but I think that if he hadnt they would have had the V1,V 2 rockets and the messerchmitt 262 by nov,dec 43 . A lot earlier. Now this is just what ive read im still reading up on what the air and experimental policies were in hitlers germany.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2005)

I think the main thing is that Hitler and his cronies got involved period. If he had not done so, the Germans may have developed better things than that.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 9, 2005)

Thanks all. I agree that if Hitler had stayed out of the Armies way they gould have done a lot better. Also the development would have gone smoother. Think of all the nasty things they could have come up with. Or even just if he would have not had his obsession with dive bombers. 

As for a plane I wish would have flown, it is a big Mig-4 I think?


----------



## MP-Willow (May 9, 2005)

After a little reading it might not be a Mig-4 that did not make it to the war, but the russians did have some good thoughts. They just did not ned to produce there own stuff, they had P-40s, and A-20, even B-25s and Hurricains. To go with the home designs they did have


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2005)

I think the same thing goes for the Russians. Stalin and his Commie goons had there hands all over everything and no one was allowed to think and develop for themselves without there stamp of approval.


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2005)

On the contrary, Adler, the Soviet Iron Fist relaxed immensely in many areas of development. After the early disasters of 1941-'42, Stalin relaxed his thinking to allow his designers and military men come up with many crazy and bizarre ideas. This allowed for the vast array of drawing board designs and mock up models in the Soviet Union. 

I could post many tank designs that were drawn up in the Soviet Union, some never went past the drawing board, others became prototypes. The only real mistake made by Soviet Russia that was all Stalin's fault due to his intervention was the turning of the Soviet Armies to East Prussia instead of pressing straight on to Berlin, in 1944. 

Sure, all designs required Stalin's approval to be manufactured but there were many designs to choose from. Hitler was involved every step of the way...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 10, 2005)

That is true, after the disasters, Stalin laid off a bit, but I think that may be one reason why the Soviet military was behind so many others of the time.


----------



## Smokey (May 10, 2005)

http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/cheranovsky-list.html
Boris Ivanovich Cheranovskij's aircraft are cool
Particularly this prewar- the Batplane It had two 80mm recoilless cannons{!} in wings, out of the propeller arch.





BICh-17 [Unfortunate abbreviation]

and this postwar




BICh-26


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2005)

The reason that the Soviet Union was in a bad state in the first place was all Stalin's fault, yes. No one else can take the blame for Stalin. The Red Army's head had been cut off, so to speak, with Stalin's purges.


----------



## Piaggio108 (May 10, 2005)

1) Mitsubishi Ki-83: heavy fighter
2) Fiat AS.14: ground attack conversion of RS.14
3) Dornier Do.335


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2005)

yes the Do-335 in particular would have been very interesting.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2005)

Although they were used to defend Dornier factories late war I belive.

I would have like to see the CANT Z.1018 Night Fighter to see service. As Piaggio said the AS.14 would have been good too


----------



## MP-Willow (May 11, 2005)

Plan_D it was not just the Red Armie's head, but realy it's heart. A lot of young and talented officers were just taken a way or so crippled that they became unable to lead well. But oly the Russians would have some of the best planes designed from prision camps.

Italian nightfighters, they would be like the day fighters, good, but not in time or quantity, and then no pilots to crew them


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

how was italian radar technology??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

Im not sure. I dont actually think they had any real night fighters, they probably just sent up day fighters.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

if they sent up anything at all..........

i doubt the italains had any of their own radars, i reckon if they had any at all they'd be german........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

Probably, but it makes sense. Italian designs + German mechanics made for a stunning package in most cases.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

yes but it's better not to rely on other countries, what if you get cut off?? that's why it was so important to protect our convoys........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

Didnt you just contradict yourself there?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2005)

yes, yes i did, but it's different for us...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2005)

But for them it doesnt have to travel very far in what was anyway an axis occupied europe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2005)

Yes the Do-335 was used for defence of the Dornier Factories. I do not know what kind of combat it saw though, if it even saw any. Here is some interesting info on the Do-335 though:



> The first ten Do 335A-0's were delivered for testing in May. By late 1944 the Do 335A-1 was on the production line. This was similar to the A-0 but with the uprated DB 603E-1 engines and two underwing hard points for additional bombs, drop tanks or guns. Capable of a maximum speed of 474 mph (763 km/h) at 21,325 ft (6,500 m) with MW 50 boost, or 426 mph (686 km/h) without boost, and able to climb to 26,250 ft (8,000 m) in under 15 minutes, the Do 335A-1 could easily outrun any Allied fighters it encountered. Even with one engine out it could reach about 350 mph (563 km/h), allowing it to escape combat fairly easily.
> 
> Delivery commenced in January 1945. When the US Army overran the Oberpfaffenhofen factory in late April 1945, only eleven Do 335A-1 single seat fighter-bombers and two Do 335A-12 conversion trainers had been completed.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_335


----------



## mosquitoman (May 11, 2005)

CC, it was more a case of Italian aircraft designers+German engine designers to produce a good Italian plane


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

Which didn't really matter because you could just get German aircraft and engine designers...and have a better aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

I agree with you Plan_D. The Italians had some good designs but overall I am not very impressed with the most of there designs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

simply because they weren't that impressive......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

UMMM.... Yes.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

Oh but they were...the Germans used MC.205's because they were more than capable of dealing with P-51D's...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

I think they used them because they took them from the Italians and would use anythign that was decent, but not because they thought the Me-109G and Fw-190's could not.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

Maybe. Whatever the case though, when the Series 5 fighters were entering service in 1943 they were right up with the best of the time.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

ok let's change the discussion a little, was there anything purely italain that was any good (ok not purely but mostly)??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

SM.79, MC.202 (Ok but that had DB.601, as did Re-2001), CANT Z.1007, MC.200, CR.42, RS.14, P.108, Re-2000.....things like that 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

all of which were rubbish compared to german or allied designs...........


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

First massive error that I care to point out, the Cr.42. It wasn't good, in fact it was pretty crap. As all bi-planes were.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

In relative terms it was good though.

Wow lanc, shows that youve done lots of research on your Italian planes, because if you could be arsed to do a little look around youd see that they werent all "rubbish" compared to Allied designs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2005)

yeah i CANT (see what i did there 8) ) believe CC actually thinks all them were good........


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

Comparitively, my turds could be considered good...compared to let's say a B-25 Roc. That doesn't make the Cr.42 good.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 12, 2005)

It's good compared to a Wright Flyer


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

Wright Flyer with a couple of .50 cals won the wings would make for a great ground attack aircraft, as it operates best at an altitude of around 3 - 4 feet


----------



## mosquitoman (May 12, 2005)

Then again it would probably cause more damage by crashing into the enemy positions


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2005)

Going around 5 mph, it'd probably just crash and fall to the ground. Whoever it crashed into would brush off his shoulder and laugh at the pilot.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

Im sorry but I can not think of too many good Italian designs. I think they just failed in the aircraft department.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2005)

The majority of the designs were incredibly sound. They just couldnt produce engines that done them justice.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

Either way I am not impressed by them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2005)

Hmmmm. Your call but I think the series 5 fighters deserve notice from anyone.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

They may have been some of the best that the Italians made but compared to Me-109's and Spitfires they would put a fight at best. Against a Fw-190 or P-38 they stood know chance.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 16, 2005)

When Italy exited the war in September of 1943, their Fiat G.55, Regianne Re.2005 and to a lesser extent, Macchi 205 were equals to anything the allies had.

In German tests conducted in early 1943, the G.55 in particular was competetive with the Me-109 and FW-190 at lower altitudes and had "superior" handling characteristics at higher altitides. I haven't been able to confirm this but have read that the Germans at one point were considering the G.55/56 as a potential replacement for the Me-109.

All three Series five aircraft were widely considered as being able to hold their own against P-51's. 
--------------------

In December 1942 a technical commission of the Regia Aeronautica was invited by Luftwaffe to test some German aircrafts in Rechlin. The visit was part of a joint plan for the standardization of the Axis aircraft production. In the same time some Luftwaffe officers visited Guidonia where they were particularly interested in the performances promised by the Serie 5's. On December 9 these impressions were discussed in a Luftwaffe staff meeting and rised the interest of Goering itself. 

In February 1943 a German test commission was sent in Italy to evaluate the new Italian fighters. The commission was led by Oberst Petersen and was formed by Luftwaffe officiers and pilots nad by technical personnel, among them the Flugbaumeister Malz. The Germans carried with them also several aircrafts included a Fw190A and a Me109G for direct comparison tests in simulated dogfights. 

The tests began February 20. The German commission, not without a certain surprise, was very impressed by the Italian aircrafts, the G55 in particular. In general, all the Serie 5's were very good at low altitudes, but the G55 was competitive with its German opponents also in term of speed and climb rate at high altitudes still maintaining superior handling characteristics. The definitive evaluation by the German commission was "excellent" for the G55, "good" for the Re2005 and "average" for the MC205. Oberst Petersen defined the G55 "the best fighter in the Axis" and immediately telegraphed his impressions to Goering. After listening the recommendations of Petersen, Milch and Galland, a meeting held by Goering on February 22 voted to produce the G55 in Germany. 

The interest of the Germans, apart from the good test results, derived also from the development possibilities they was able to see in the G55 and in the Re2005. For the Re2005 the German interest resulted in the provision of an original DB605 with the new WM injection. This engine and a VDM propeller were installed on the MM495 prototype that was acquired by Luftwaffe and tested in Rechlin. The aircraft reached 700 km/h during a test with a German pilot, but the airframe was not judged sufficiently strong for these performances. 

The G55 was bigger and heavier and was considered a very good candidate for the new DB603 engine. Other visits were organized in Germany during March and May 1943 in Rechlin and Berlin. The G55 was again tested at Rechlin at the presence of Milch. Gabrielli and other FIAT personalities were invited to visit German factories and to discuss the evolution of the aircraft. The specifications of the German G55/II included the DB603 engine, five 20 mm guns and a pressurized cockpit. The suggestion of weapons in the wings, limited to one 20 mm gun for each wing, originated the final configuration of the Serie I, while the 603 engine was succesfully installed in the G56 prototypes. 

As a concrete results of the German interest in the G55, the Luftwaffe acquired three complete G55 Sottoserie 0 airframes (MM91064-65-66) for evaluations and experiments giving in change three DB603 engines and original machinery for the setup of other production lines of the DB605/RA1050 RC58 I. Two of the Luftwaffe G55's remained in Turin, at the Aeritalia plants, where they were used by German and Italian engineers to study the planned modifications and the possible optimizations to the production process. Later these two were converted to Serie I and delivered to the ANR. The third one was transferred to Rechlin for tests and experiments in Germany. The DB603 engines were used to build the G56 prototypes. 

The interest in the G55 program was still high after the Armistice: in October 1943 Kurt Tank, who previously personally tested a G55 in Rechlin, was in Turin to discuss about the G55 production. However, war events and the not yet optimized production process were the reasons for which the G55 program was eventually abandoned by the Luftwaffe. Early produced G55's required about 15000 manhours; while there were estimations to reduce the effort to about 9000 manhours, the German factories were able to assemble a Bf109 in only 5000 manhours.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

I would pretty much agree with you, but how did htey compare to a Fw-190D or P-38? I dont think it would be that close.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 16, 2005)

I just want to note that Italy exited the war in September of 1943 so comparing aircraft that appeared later is a bit like apples and oranges. 

Also, these Italian planes were no less Italian by virtue of having German engines built under license than say, the P-51 was less American by virtue of having an English engine built under license.


----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

The P-38 was in service before the war started in 1939. 

The fact that the most successful Mustangs were Merlin engined doesn't take away that they were an American design but it does show that the American design wouldn't have been so good without a foreign engine. 

The same applies for Italian designs. If they didn't have German engines they would have been useless. 

The Spitfire however was all British!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

That is true, you can not compare them to anything after they stopped building them.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2005)

Exactly. And in that respects the Seris 5's probably were the best fighters *of the time*


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2005)

The P-38 was around at the time. Were they better than the P-38?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2005)

I think so. It would probably have only been early J models at that time, and P-38's didnt really become formidable fighters until the late model J's and L's.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2005)

They were formidable almost from the start. The major problem with Italian fighters is their pilots. They may have been better but a Spitfire Mk.IX or Fw-190A could both hang with a 5 series. 

They weren't so drastically advanced that the Allied or Axis forces were going to take the design.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2005)

Yeah I admit Italian pilots werent all that good. They had some credible pilots though, if Adriano Visconti was let loose in one it would have been an effective combinatin.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2005)

Very few crediable pilots. The vast majority were probably worse than VVS pilots.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

I still dont think the aircraft could hang with a Fw-190 even with an experienced pilot.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2005)

I do. A mock dogfight whould have been interesting. The only problem I see with the Italian designs is possibly damage tolerance.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2005)

If they have low damage tolerance, they also can't take a lot of stress on the air frame. That would greatly reduce the effectiveness in combat of the aircraft. 

It can't pull a tight turn if the wing starts falling off.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2005)

Ok, that rules out my theory as pretty much all Italian planes could turn extremely tightly.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2005)

I was talking at quite high speeds. Turning tight at low speeds doesn't put a tremendous amount of G force on the wings. That is why the Zero could only turn tightly at low speeds, any higher than 275 mph and the airelons became stiff because of G force.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 17, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said, "_I still dont think the aircraft could hang with a Fw-190 even with an experienced pilot._"

Why? It was specifically flown against the FW-190.

"* In general, all the Serie 5's were very good at low altitudes, but the G55 was competitive with its German opponents also in term of speed and climb rate at high altitudes still maintaining superior handling characteristics.*"

"*Oberst Petersen defined the G55 "the best fighter in the Axis" and immediately telegraphed his impressions to Goering. After listening the recommendations of Petersen, Milch and Galland, a meeting held by Goering on February 22 voted to produce the G55 in Germany*"

Plan_D said, "_They weren't so drastically advanced that the Allied or Axis forces were going to take the design._"

"*The interest of the Germans, apart from the good test results, derived also from the development possibilities they was able to see in the G55 and in the Re2005*."

"*The interest in the G55 program was still high after the Armistice: in October 1943 Kurt Tank, who previously personally tested a G55 in Rechlin, was in Turin to discuss about the G55 production. However, war events and the not yet optimized production process were the reasons for which the G55 program was eventually abandoned by the Luftwaffe.*"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

I think it would have cost to much to start up a program in Germany anyhow. It would have been cheaper to stick with what you have.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 17, 2005)

That appears to be the case. I understand that the Fiat G.55 Centauro was being considered to replace the Me-109 as a front line fighter (again, I can't confirm) but:

"*Early produced G55's required about 15000 manhours; while there were estimations to reduce the effort to about 9000 manhours, the German factories were able to assemble a Bf109 in only 5000 manhours.
*"


----------



## MP-Willow (May 17, 2005)

Davidicus, that was some nice info on the Series 5 planes. I a a little sad the 205 was rated so poorly, but that is ok. They were never really given a lot of chances to show the world what the designs chould do. Also if the Germans used more of the Italian designs think of the planes that could be sent to Russia or to England


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2005)

Yes replacing the 109 with G.55's would have been impractical and costly in the short term.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> Davidicus, that was some nice info on the Series 5 planes. I a a little sad the 205 was rated so poorly, but that is ok. They were never really given a lot of chances to show the world what the designs chould do. Also if the Germans used more of the Italian designs think of the planes that could be sent to Russia or to England



That would be true and crazy, but they would have taken up production space so I really dont think it would have mattered.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2005)

If it was such a drastic improvement they would have taken the G.55 to replace the Bf-109. It obviously wasn't worth their time and effort. 

Plus, what's the point in the G.55. You have an aircraft that is just slightly superior to the Bf-109 but because of production, there's three Bf-109s and only one G.55! 
People attack the German Tanks because they were complex machines and took a while to build. I think the same can be applied to Italian 5 Series.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2005)

Yes, but that doesnt alter the fact that they were great machines... 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2005)

With that then, the Tiger I was the best tank of the war. 

You know someone who can't read will attack me for that.


----------



## Mosin (May 18, 2005)

What I think it all boils down to is this. The italians were good airplane designers ,but were behind the Allies and Germany.. Very good designs but bad manufactering capability reduced the quality of the planes .. They were still better than the Japanese planes in my opinion.


----------



## Chocks away! (May 18, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Type: Single-seat fighter
> Origin: Messerscmitt AG
> Models: V1 and V2
> First Flight: June 1942
> ...


 Sexy... But the three view drawing has a tail wheel. Is it another version?


----------



## elmilitaro (May 18, 2005)

Hey Plan D your wrong. The best tank of the war was probably the Kv-1, the Russisan monster. Do you know how much firepower it took to take it down sometimes over 10 direct hits from artillery weapons like howitzers an 75's. They were usually destroyed only by German 88 flak gun, but only after so many hits.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 18, 2005)

Well pD, you were right


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2005)

Of course I was but the thing is, he's still wrong. The Tiger I would have obliterated the KV-1. He's basing the experience of the KV-1 from it's actions in the early war when Germany had inferior tanks to the Soviets. 

When early mark Panzer IVs with short barrelled 75mm (low velocity) cannons were the best they had. If the KV-1 was actually running, it was an impressive machine. It was hardly a monster though.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 20, 2005)

In the long run the G.55s could have been developed to outpace the bf 109s and they still had a lot of developmental potential. The 109 was already maxed out.

As for tanks, T-34 is al you need. Yes the big bad tigers were impressivs like the Italian fighters and German jets, but they were to little in numbers, and the big Tigers just did not have the gas to do the job


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2005)

I had a rather humourous conversation the other day about the Tiger tank. But thats another story


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2005)

The Panther was better than the T-34. If you want to be ripped to shreds about that, start a thread in the vehicles bit.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 20, 2005)

Hows about the IS-2? 
But it would have been interesting if the Do-19 and Ju-89 were in Luftwaffe service with the correct tactics


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2005)

The IS-2 and Panther were on an equal playing ground except the Panther had better optical and radio equipment.


----------



## delcyros (May 21, 2005)

JS-2/3=Kingtiger
JS1/KV2=Tiger
T34=Panther
The germans had the general advantage of radio, optical and tactics, the soviets had good diesel engines, allowing them to have a better range as well as not that vulnarable. Just my opinion. All in all the T34 was the best(if you factor the quantity also)

Ju-89 and Do-19 are interesting. The Ju-89 V2 had two FAI world records with 11.000 lbs (5000 Kg) payload an altitude of 9312 m (30.916 ft.) on 4th june 1938 and with 22.000 lbs (10000 Kg) payload an altitude of 7242 m (24.042 ft.) on 8th june 1938. Officially these records are credited to the Ju-90 V1 but this is impossible since the V-1 was destroyed on 6th of february. The civil Ju-90V-1 was made from parts of the military Ju-89V3. All in all a force of those strategic bombers wouldn´t help in a Blitzkrieg and therefore I doubt that this would have been positively in anyway for the Luftwaffe. Maybe they could win BoB but they would have lost the battle of France prior....


----------



## mosquitoman (May 21, 2005)

But a mix of Stukas, Ju88 and the heavy bombers would be the perfect balance so Blitzkreig would be succesful as would strategic bombing


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2005)

How can you even put the IS-2 and IS-3 in the same catergory, I will never know. The Panther was on equal playing ground with the IS-2, it could destroy it with a direct hit to the frontal armour at 800 metres. 

The Panther was far superior to the T-34. A single T-34 wouldn't stand a chance against a Panther. Also, the only reason the Panther was out in small numbers is because resources were wasted on other Hiterlist dreams such as the Pz. Kpfw 'Maus' and Pz. Kpfw VI Ausf B 'King Tiger'.


----------



## delcyros (May 21, 2005)

I do put them in the same category because they are in the same weightclass. And in case of the Panther, the T-34 was simply more reliable and not that proned to mechanical failures. (remember, during operation Zitadelle 62% of the Panther losses have not been because of enemy action but because of mechanical problems and fire)
And of course, there are a lot of T-34 (and only very few Kingtiger)...

Often strategy is carried out by individual. Wever favoured the strategic bomber idea, Udet the dive bombers. These are contradictary points of view, a mixture is unprobale (and would cost the industry too much ressources to do so.) but anyway a nice idea.


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2005)

In Citadelle they were all Panther Ausf Ds. The majority of the problems, which were clutch problems, were solved in the Ausf A and even more so in Ausf G. 

The IS-3 never saw action and was far superior to the IS-2. The Panther was on equal terms to the IS-2 in firepower and armour. It was superior in technology like optics and radio. 

The radio was extremely important as it gave strategic flexability on the field. The T-34 was not a good tank by 1943, it was out-classed. The Pz. Kpfw IV post F/2s were on equal terms to the T-34. 

The Panther's low production was purely due to wastage of materials on other tanks and projects. The Panther was not a bad tank and by the Ausf A it was not *that* bad with mechanical failures.


----------



## delcyros (May 22, 2005)

Given. 
Improvements worked on for the Panther. I just have a view that quantity has it´s own quality, and this benefits the T-34 more. Of course there are reasons why the Panther wasn´t produced in higher numbers, but this isn´t a what if thread or isn´t it?
The T-34 was unmatched in 1941,42 and most of 1943, also. The reason why so much of them have been destroyed is originated in superior tactics used by the german crews. That´s why even a good Pz-III has a reasonable chance to get a T-34 kill. However, the T-34 was a fearsome vehicle, and it wasn´t prior to the introduction of Pz-IV-F that the germans could fight on equal terms with it. 
And while the Panther was improved it never reached the rate of reliability common for T-34. In my view it lacked a powerful Diesel engine.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

That is about all it lacked was an engine. Personally Id go with a King Tiger anyday.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

That is about all it lacked was an engine. Personally Id go with a King Tiger anyday.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

That is about all it lacked was an engine. Personally Id go with a King Tiger anyday.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2005)

As soon as the Germans introduced the Pz. Kpfw IV Ausf F/2 the T-34 was quickly on it's way out. The Germans could fight on equal terms with a superior armament. 

The Panther was not as reliable as the T-34 but the T-34 was not as amazingly reliable as people like to think. Over rough terrain the poor build would actually start to shake the tank to pieces. They would break down quite often but the simple build would allow them to be fixed quickly. 

The fact of the matter is, the T-34 was in quantity but the Panther would knock out 4-5 T-34s before being knocked out itself. 

The T-34 was the best tank in the world in 1940-'41 but by 1942 it had already started losing it's edge. By 1943 only numbers kept it on the field of battle. 

The T-34 was the same as the M4 Sherman. Numbers were the only advantage. On paper the T-34/85 was better than the M4A8 (76W) but in post-war conflicts, the Sherman always came out on top!

Personally, I'd rather be in a Pz. Kpfw V Ausf G 'Panther' - it's practically invincible to any first hits and it'll safely destroy anything that hits it. The only foreign tanks capable of fighting with it on equal ground was the US M26, British A34 and Soviet IS-2.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 23, 2005)

Well now that we seem to have our tank ich scratched, I hopw we could wind our way back to the topic. Anyone have thoughts of the USAAC's bat? Or Consolidated's Model 31


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2005)

True we need to get back on topic!

Are you talking about the McDonnald Douglas XP-67? If so, I think it was a good design and had potential. It carried one heck of a punch too. If the prototype had not caught fire, it may have gotten somewhere. I think the end of the war though pretty much ended its chances.

Type: Long Range Fighter
Origin: McDonnel Aircraft Corporation
Crew: One
Model: XP-67
First Flight: January 6, 1944
Production: 1 Prototype

Engine: 
Model: Continental XI-1430-17/19
Type: 12-Cylinder inverted-Vee aircooled engine
Number: Two Horsepower: 1,350 hp

Dimensions:
Wing span: 55 ft. 0 in.
Length: 44 ft. 9.25 in.
Height: 15 ft. 9 in.
Lifting Surface Area: 414 sq. ft.

Weights: 
Empty: 17,745 lb.
Loaded: 22,114 lb.
Maximum: 25,400 lb.

Performance:
Maximum Speed: 405 mph at 25,000 ft.
Maximum Speed: 357 mph at 10,000 ft.
Maximum Climb Rate: 2,600 ft./min.
Service Ceiling: 37,400
Maximum Range: 2,385 miles

Armament: Proposed
Six 37mm M4 cannon mounted in wing roots
Ammunition: 45 rounds per gun.


----------



## delcyros (May 24, 2005)

Nice Info, Adler.

I always liked the design, just from an aesthetic point of view. But indeed it was nothing close to a superb fighter. Too heavy to be maneuverable, a large target to hit and with it´s slow climb rate even not suited for interceptions. I wonder what sorties it would field. Ground attacks? Ship busting? All possible. However it really is a beautiful design and who knows? Better engines could provide the performance needed for this plane...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2005)

I agree with. I think it had potential but needed to be worked.


----------



## Glider (May 24, 2005)

A slightly different suggestion is the Martin Baker 5 which test flew in May 1944. Strongly suggest that it would wipe the floor with everything, 460mph at 20,000. The main thing that stopped it was that the flight of the Meteor and the recognition that the jet was the future.

For the Gun worshipers you could try the Martin Baker 3 with 6 x 20mm. Enough to turn any plane to dust


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

I will agree with you on that. The Martin Baker 5 could have been a great aircraft but I dont like the way she looked, I prefer the M.B. 3.


----------



## delcyros (May 26, 2005)

It surely would have played a role comparable to the introduction of the Fw 190. Great Plane, indeed!
However, the jet was the future, no doubt and even this great piston engined plane would have seen itself in defensive facing jets.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

Very true. That is why most of the late war lets say 1945 piston engine aircraft were dropped because of development of jet fighters.


----------



## superunknown (May 26, 2005)

I wish the Westland Welkin had seen service, it was basically a larger version of the Whirlwind with Merlin engines. I have done an aircraft profile for the database on the Whirlwind but it hasn't been put up yet.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 26, 2005)

Problem was the niche for the Welkin was being filled by the Hornet and the Mosquito while it was being developed


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2005)

And the mosquito did it just fine.


----------



## superunknown (May 27, 2005)

Bear in mind that the Whirlwind was already in the air while the Mossie had only just been drawn up. Whirlwind first flight - October 1938, Mosquito first flight - November 1940. Plus the Mosquito was built as a daytime bomber, where as the Whirlwind was built as a fighter. The only thing that stopped the development into the Welkin was the fact that the MOD wasn't convinced that they needed a 2 engined fighter, same goes for the early development of the Mosquito.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 27, 2005)

The Whirlwind would have been great if they gave it some half decent engines- the Peregrines it had were useless


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2005)

I am not sure how well she would have faired anyhow?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2005)

Okay that post was meant to be before yours, so yes that is what I was getting at.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2005)

Going on the success of the Wellington, I think the Windsor could have been great.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2005)

It's nose reminds be of a Turnip!


----------



## mosquitoman (May 27, 2005)

The Warwick could have been good aswell


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2005)

I thought the Warwick saw limited service?


----------



## mosquitoman (May 27, 2005)

It did, but only in the ASR role with airborne lifeboats.
If it was given some better engines it would have been fine


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 27, 2005)

there was no advantage to bringing the windsor into service, the lanc was fine for the war, and post war, after the lickoln which was already planned to replace the lanc, we'd be in the jet age.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2005)

No there may not have been an advantage, but potentially a good plane.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 27, 2005)

I think that the late war was a bit of sad times. You had great piston designs but the jets were at the door. Also the prop engines were good or bad. Engine designes were really wild in the war.

CC, I really dislike the Windsore cockpit


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2005)

Not very nice is it  But the plane had a good all round performance and the Geodetric structure was bound to make it strong.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 27, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> I think that the late war was a bit of sad times. You had great piston designs but the jets were at the door. Also the prop engines were good or bad. Engine designes were really wild in the war.



Because of this, a great portion of the world's air forces were rendered instantly obsolete, and that's why so many WW2 aircraft disappeared so quickly at the end of hostilities.


----------



## Glider (May 27, 2005)

Another aircraft that I would have liked to see was the Supermarine Bomber B12/36. The prototype was destroyed in late 1940. It was designed to have a bombload of around 10-12,000lb at heights greater than the Lancaster with a speed in excess of 320mph.

I realise that these were design figures but, it could have caused a stir in 1940


----------



## MP-Willow (May 31, 2005)

That Bomber sounds similar to the B-24, a bit more load and speed, but probably at the coast of arms and armor 

I also feel that the planes disapeared so fast because they were not wanted


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

I think a lot of planes disapeard so fast because of polotical reasons, especially on the German side. But even in the US. If a designer had a friend in high places such as congress his plane would be get chosen if not it would get passed over. Just a theory though.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 3, 2005)

Adler, that happened a lot in Germany and it is true with some in the states. I think it was getting better and if the war went on maybe stardardizing the planes in service would have helped?

But basic huma thinking for a politition, they are who gets me the votes, so they need the jobs. You can think of the base closeing lists the same way.


----------



## wmaxt (Jun 3, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think a lot of planes disapeard so fast because of polotical reasons, especially on the German side. But even in the US. If a designer had a friend in high places such as congress his plane would be get chosen if not it would get passed over. Just a theory though.



The P-51s AAF "Handeler" the man who was responsable for correcting deficencies and procurement ect was the son of a congressman.

wmaxt


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 6, 2005)

Good find


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

Interesting stuff there, and yes you are correct I look at the base closings the same way.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 13, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

Anyhow it sucks all together.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 15, 2005)

True, True.

Question on these planes that never saw action, what about the US Jet program? How close was the jet, the P-80 I think


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2005)

The P-80 made it into service, it just never saw combat.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 15, 2005)

Well yes it did but only as evaluation YP-80's


----------



## Smokey (Jun 15, 2005)

If this had seen service it would have been revolutionary
http://www.luft46.com/bv/bvp197.html

Two BMW 003 turbojets mounted side-by-side in the fuselage rear
The wing was mounted low and swept back
The vertical fin was also sharply swept back
Two MK 103 30mm cannon and two MG 151/20 20mm cannon were located in the forward fuselage sides
Tricycle landing gear
Cockpit in nose

Sounds quite modern


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Well yes it did but only as evaluation YP-80's



True but it still saw service.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 17, 2005)

not active service.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 17, 2005)

It saw service. It was equipped into frontline service, it just didnt see action.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 17, 2005)

as such it did not see active service, service and active service are different..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

No *Service* and *Active Service* are the same there is no difference. I dont think you understand what it means my friend. The YP-80 was on front line service at the end of WW2. It just did not see any action because it did not encounter any Luftwaffe aircraft. But it did see *ACTIVE SERVICE*!

That is like telling my buddy who flew the whole year in Iraq and was not shot at once and did not fire a single round from his gun that he did not see *ACTIVE SERVICE*. He did not see *ACTION* but he saw *ACTIVE SERVICE*.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 19, 2005)

Tis true.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2005)

They saw service over Italy and never encountered Luftwaffe but they flew sorties, so they saw active service.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

Exactly plan_D, lanc does not seem to understand this concept. I bet though that if Lancasters had flown sorties but not dropped a single bomb he would define it differently.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 19, 2005)

ok, i made a mistake and i apologise, but alder, you having a go at me constantly today is really pissing me off.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 20, 2005)

Hes not having any goes at you as far as I can see, hes just correcting a few mistakes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

Lanc I am sorry if it came accross that way to you. I appologize it was not meant to be that way. I happen to enjoy talking with you on this forum and I would not want to insult you in anyway.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 20, 2005)

Adler, some good info you have. But at times you are a bit harsh with Lanc, but we all are.

Lanc you just invite it some times, but it is all in good fun.

Smocky> that plane looks a lot like the Mig 15 or F-86. You really can tell where the world got its jet engineers and designs


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

You are correct and I will work on it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2005)

cheers



MP said:


> You really can tell where the world got its jet engineers and designs



we didn't! britian didn't get any german engineers and we did just fine!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

I am not sure on that, didn't Heinkel work with the British a bit. I am not sure I may be wrong.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2005)

i too am not cirtain but i'd think it's unlikely they would have, and they couldn't have worked on all our sucessful designs!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

No I dont think he worked on all the successful designs but it would not surprise me if there was some working together done.

Also you have to look at the designs and research that was taken. Most were taken by the US and the Russians but I am sure some was taken by the British too.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 21, 2005)

I think Heinkel did work with the British before the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

I am trying to find where I read it but I can not. I may be wrong. I know the British got German Naval designers during there own version of Operation Paperclip.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 22, 2005)

Operation Paperclip?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2005)

Capture of German scientists.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 22, 2005)

Right, thanks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

Info on Paperclip:

_Originally called Operation Overcast, Operation Paperclip was the codename for the operation by the US intelligence services and military to extract scientists specialising in rocketry (e.g. V-1, V-2), chemical weapons (e.g. Zyklon-B),chemical reaction technology and medicine from Germany after the collapse of the Nazi government during World War II. These scientists and their families were secretly brought to the United States, without State Department review and approval. None of them qualified for visas because they had all served to further the cause of Hitler's Third Reich in World War II.

Scientists were deployed at White Sands Proving Ground, New Mexico, Fort Bliss, Texas and Huntsville, Alabama to work on guided missile and ballistic missile technology, and led to the foundation of NASA and the US ICBM program.

Over 700 members of the Nazi scientific community were brought to the US as a direct result of Operation Paperclip, many of whom were still ardent Nazi supporters.

Although President Harry S. Truman gave explicit orders not to allow any scientists who were thought to have strong Nazi leanings to enter the US under Operation Paperclip, many dossiers were re-written to "clean-up" the histories of many of the scientists involved, to prevent them and their expertise falling into the hands of the Soviet Union.

Much of the information surrounding Operation Paperclip is still classified.

Separate from Paperclip was an even-more-secret effort to capture German nuclear secrets, equipment and personnel. See Operation Alsos. Another American project (TICOM) gathered German experts in cryptography.

The United States Bureau of Mines employed 7 German synthetic fuel scientists in a Fischer-Tropsch chemical plant in Missouri Louisiana in 1946 _
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_paperclip


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 24, 2005)

"Paperclip" was a nice way of colecting the german engineers before the Russians did. Also the US would have shared if only a little with the British.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2005)

Better in the US and British hands than in the Russians. Who knows how the cold war may have gone if that had been the case.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 1, 2005)

true, but the whole rush to "collect" German engineers and resurchers along with prototypes and drawings is wrather interesting 

Almost like some great trouphy hunt.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2005)

It's called the "Spoils of War". 

I think the most impressive is the movement of the Schott glass and Zeiss optic plants from Jena. The factories were gutted of all specalist equipment and all the scientists and their families were taken to Frankfurt, all in under 3 weeks. 

All that without official orders, and all organised by Hubert "The Hub" Zemke.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It's called the "Spoils of War".



No I think it is more they realized how far behind they were in some areas.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2005)

The scientists were spoils of war though. You can't get them, if you don't win.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2005)

True with that.


----------



## Rafe35 (Jul 3, 2005)

Aircraft that I WISH THEY SAW ACTION over Japan....

The real deal. The Goodyear F2G-1 Super Corsair.


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 4, 2005)

P-47H Thunderbolt

Experimental version that could exceed 500mph.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 4, 2005)

pig ugly though.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 4, 2005)

Who cares with kick ass figures like that though...


----------



## Sal Monella (Jul 4, 2005)

I find her attractive. She'd make a great "shark mouth" fighter don't you think?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 4, 2005)

Actually with the undercarriage retracted it is pretty nice, looks rather like an enlarged P-40.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 4, 2005)

IMHO, it's a sexy aircraft. 

I understand that while very fast, it's engine was problematic and at high altitudes, it's high speed diminished to well below the "D" model.

It had a liquid cooled engine built by Chrysler. I once heard it referred to as a "Hemi-bolt."


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 4, 2005)

MMM, Hemi...rhymes with semi...coincidence?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2005)

I think the P-47H would have looked nice with a bubble canopy like the P-47D. But as was posted it was really not that great compared to the P-47D.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 4, 2005)

I think you have to be an American with an appreciation for muscle cars to understand the reference to "Hemi-bolt."

See: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hemi2.htm

While Chrysler introduced the "Hemi" as a production automobile engine in 1951, it may be that their engine built for the P-47H was a Hemi as well. It may further be that this early Hemi had bugs that contributed to the engine problems with the P-47H.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2005)

Off topic but I would love to trade my Grand Cherokee in for a 2005 Grand Cherokee with a Hemi in it.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm pretty sure that the hemi design is standard now on pretty much all engines. Chrysler originally coined the term and have been getting a lot of proverbial mileage out of it for some time now.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2005)

I know the V-8 in my Grand is not a hemi but still has some great power.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 5, 2005)

AS for planes seeing service, the German jet bomber Called the "People's Jet", or the Japanese improvment on the Me-262


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 5, 2005)

the "poeple's jet" i believe was actually the He-162........


----------



## delcyros (Jul 5, 2005)

...and the japanes Kikka has no improvements over the Me-262 except for reduced weight and therefore carrier operating abilities.
In many ways it was an unbalanced design, having straight wings and less powerful engines, reducing two of the most striking advantages the Me-262 originally had: Speed and critical Mach speed.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2005)

Yes, the "Volksjager" He-162...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

I agree the Japanese pretty much screwed up the design.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 20, 2005)

But they were trying to get things better, they never were going to give up as long as they could fight they would. 

Thanks for the help on the He-162 that design really is interesting, the German jet and rocket program so much better then the USAAF, well we made up for it by collecting what German's we could


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

The U.S jet programme wasn't bad, they had the J-33 jet engine that was based on British designs but was as twice as powerful. The British engineers saw that engine and decided that they could go one better, which they did with the Rolls Royce Nene. 

From an aircraft point of view - need I say more than the P-80?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2005)

The USAAF program was not bad it just started late.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jul 23, 2005)

Interestingly, some of the first British jet-tests were conducted using the Avro Lancaster prototype, BT308;... and then in early 1943, a modified Lancaster II was used, with a Metro-Vickers Beryl F2/1 gas turbine fitted where the rear-turret was, with a big scoop on top... Also, a Lancaster Mk.VI, known as the ''Universal Test Bed'', was fitted with a 2,600 lbs.static-thrust Armstrong-Siddeley ASX jet turbine mounted around the bomb-bay....Finally, Lancastrian VH742 was fitted with the two RR Nenes, replacing the outboard Merlins, and made it's maiden flight on the 8th August 1946, the jets having 10,000 lbs of available s/t. - De Havilland also obtained a Lancastrian to test their new 'Ghost' engines, also of similar thrust to the Nenes......

I knew the Lancaster was an awesome design, I just discovered these additional facts having just finished Roy Chadwick, the designer's, biography, ''Architect of Wings'' [by Harald Penrose]...bloody good read!!


----------



## vanir (Jul 23, 2005)

> I'm pretty sure that the hemi design is standard now on pretty much all engines. Chrysler originally coined the term and have been getting a lot of proverbial mileage out of it for some time now.


Most engines use the typical wedge or pent-roof cylinder head design in open and closed chamber, including almost all OHV designs.
The Hemi V8 from Dodge is the 426 favoured by dragsters, Adler's Grand will be a 318 or 360 (383 or 440 possibly optional but I doubt it) and all have typical wedge cylinder heads.
I modelled a 440 for you on Engine Analyzer Pro set at 92 R+M/2 octane fuel and std dyno spec (factory rated at 375hp), swapped the heads for a Hemi design straight off a 426 and popped a 1050 dominator carbie on it for 466hp straight up.

I've even got the stats for a Spit MkV 30-litre Merlin in here...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 24, 2005)

with regards to the lancasters mentioned........

the top picture is of the sole Swiss lancaster, the Tp-80 (formerly RA805, a Mk.I of the RAF) was aquired by the swiss in 1950, and was delivered in may 1951. She was modified by Avro at Hamble in the UK. A large pod was fitted under the fuselage to contain the jet engine and the underside of the fuselage was covered with stainless steel plating to resist the heat from the exhaust. For the same reason, the tailwheel was made retractable. A large control panel was installed in the radio operater's space

she was used to test numerous sweedish engines

unfortunatly she crashed in 1956, taking two of the 4 man crew with her.........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 24, 2005)

Very interesting. Actually, I knew most of that already lanc, but it was still very interesting.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 24, 2005)

If we are talking about never saw service types, put me down for a Merlin II or Merlin 45 powered Westland Whirlwind variant. 

Get rid of the unreliable and somewhat anemic Pegasus engine. You would have to space the Merlins further apart as they needed a larger prop than the Pegasus.

Go to a belt feed for the Hispanos to double the amo load, add Fowler or butterfly- type trailing edge flaps to reduce the landing distance and clip the wingtips for a better rate of roll (which you would need as the Merlins are now further out from the Centre of gravity).

Strap on two 90 litre drop tanks or do like Westland wanted and install a 45 gallon rear fusealge tank and install a semirecessed centre-line bomb mount and you would have one very mean mother of a low alt escort fighter/ figher-bomber. It sounds crazy but the twin engined Whilrwind actually had less frontal area than a Hawker Hurricane! Imagine the performance with a pair of +16lbs boosted Merlin 45s running at 1600hp. 

I know that a derivative of the Wirlwhind, the Westland Welkin, was modified with high altitude Merlins, but that never saw any operational service and was more like a bunch of flaws with wings than a real aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> with regards to the lancasters mentioned........
> 
> the top picture is of the sole Swiss lancaster, the Tp-80 (formerly RA805, a Mk.I of the RAF) was aquired by the swiss in 1950, and was delivered in may 1951. She was modified by Avro at Hamble in the UK. A large pod was fitted under the fuselage to contain the jet engine and the underside of the fuselage was covered with stainless steel plating to resist the heat from the exhaust. For the same reason, the tailwheel was made retractable. A large control panel was installed in the radio operater's space
> 
> ...



GREAT STUFF LANC!......

I worked for a company where we fitted a small jet engine to the right lower fwd. fuselage section of a B727. This was done for Honda. They are now looking to manufacture the engine and a small jet.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 24, 2005)

Jabberwocky said:


> If we are talking about never saw service types, put me down for a Merlin II or Merlin 45 powered Westland Whirlwind variant.
> 
> Get rid of the unreliable and somewhat anemic Pegasus engine. You would have to space the Merlins further apart as they needed a larger prop than the Pegasus.
> 
> ...



I agree. The Whirlwind had great potential for a long range heavy fighter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 24, 2005)

could have had a serious impact on the battle of britian........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2005)

Interesting stuff. I actually have never seen any pics of the jet test bed lancs.


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 25, 2005)

Jet powered, Lancasters, or well at least a test bed. But here is a question, could the Lancaster be modivied to be a jet bomber?

Ad;er, nice sig pic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 25, 2005)

it's very unlikely, it would be more pheasable to have auxiliary jet engines for extra speed over the target for example, jet engines at the time weren't really powerful enough for such a large heavy plane.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2005)

I dont think without airframe strengthening it would have been possible either.


----------



## quayhog (Sep 11, 2005)

The Grumman F8F Bearcat had an active squadron at sea and would have seen war service if an invasion of Japan had taken place. The Lockheed P2V-1 prototypes had flown and squadrons were becoming operational in 1945. It too would have seen war service if the war went into 1946.


----------



## GregP (Sep 11, 2005)

The XF5U was not a Corsair. It was a Navy Fighter prototype that was essentially round. It had a pair of P&W R-2800 and was never flown.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 12, 2005)

The XF5U-1 was supposed to be test flown but vibrations proved so high on taxi testing that it never took off. The taxi testing was done on Feb 27, 1947.

The letter of intent for the Vought VS-315 (XF5U-1) was issued September 17, 1942. The XF5U-1 was a twin-engine, single-seat, low aspect ratio flying wing type of airplane, manufactured by the Chance Vought Division, United Aircraft Corporation, Stratford, Connecticut.

The first XF5U-1 airplane (Bureau Number 33958) was used for static tests; proof loads, extended to ultimate, largely confirmed structural design predictions. The second XF5U-1 airplane (Bureau Number 33959) was used for experimental flight test and concept validation. It was never flown because many hours of engine run-up showed excessive mechanical vibration between the engine-propeller shafting, gear boxes, and airframe structure. The airplane was taxi tested on February 3, 1947 at Stratford, Connecticut, but, again, vibration levels were considered excessive. The airplane was being readied for shipment by sea through the Panama Canal to Edwards AFB, California, when the contract was canceled (March 17, 1947) because of still unsolved technical problems and the lack of Navy R&D money. 
http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/xf5u-1.html

The V-173 which was the forunner of the XF5U that was built for testing was flown on 23 OCT 1942. Below is a picture of the V-173.


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

I wish the G10N Fugaku had reached service....it had 2 more engines than the B-29


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 11, 2007)

And having 2 extra engines does what exactly???


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 11, 2007)

...increases the likelihood of engine failure, ofcourse.


----------



## renrich (Mar 11, 2007)

It would have been interesting to see what the Boeing XF8B-1 would have done if it had been produced and deployed. It had a P&W 28 cylinder R-4360 engine driving two counter rotating propellers. Supposed to have been a long range carrier based fighter. It's gross weight was over ten tons.


----------



## Treize (Mar 11, 2007)

Dunno if its been mentioned yet (thats a lot of posts to flip through), but mine would be the IAR-81 with a BMW engine grafted on from a Fw-190A. Would have definitely helped its performance, but at that point in the war the Germans weren't interested in licensing the rights to build the engine out, so the ARR was stuck defending against the USAAF in secondhand 109s and 1940-vintage IARs.

Also, the P-38K might have been a good fighter for NW Europe if it had been built, or a P-38 with Merlins. Great plane, but it just couldn't cope with the conditions over Germany well enough as it was.

And just for the comedic rule of 3, kinda wish the P-51H had seen action, just to see how it would have done in combat. Missed WWII, and was not used in Korea. Would love to know if the light-weight Mustang idea was a viable one or not.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 11, 2007)

I like the IAR-81 idea. She was a beautiful, if not delicate, plane.


----------



## renrich (Mar 11, 2007)

I may very well be mistaken( I can't find my copy of "Whistling Death" by Boone Guyton since it is packed) but I believe he states that he flew the XF5U briefly and it almost scared him to death.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 11, 2007)

P-51H


----------



## bigZ (Mar 11, 2007)

Just 2 off the top of my head the fighter version of the Buggatti and the Martin Baker MB3(6 x 20mm Cannons!!!!).

Didn't the Polish have a nice monoplane on the drawing boards before being invaded(can't recall the details)?


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 12, 2007)

You seriously think that powder puff could filed 6-20mm?


----------



## edd (Mar 12, 2007)

hi, my first post!
i would have love to see all the planes that was first "turned down" and then later joined the war.

the p40 was picked before the p38, imagine p38's in the air since 1940! even at pearl, they could have chase the enemies back to their carriers!

the same with me 262, first flew in 1942 and germany was still on the offensive, but only operational in late 1994.

would have absolutly love to see the do335 in action aswell. first flight in '43.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2007)

Me-262 operational in late 1994....

Wow did the Germans use it in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia?



Sorry I had to give you **** for that, I know it was a typo.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 12, 2007)




----------



## Civettone (Mar 12, 2007)

Treize said:


> Dunno if its been mentioned yet (thats a lot of posts to flip through), but mine would be the IAR-81 with a BMW engine grafted on from a Fw-190A. Would have definitely helped its performance, but at that point in the war the Germans weren't interested in licensing the rights to build the engine out, so the ARR was stuck defending against the USAAF in secondhand 109s and 1940-vintage IARs.


I often wonder why the Rumanians didn't build the Gnome Rhone 14N or 14R engines. After French defeat and forced production, getting a licence to produce wouldn't have been a problem and they could have modified their own 14K engine production to the new one. With the 14R engine the IAR.80 would have had a 1100 kW engine which would have made it competitive until the end of the war...

Kris


----------



## bigZ (Mar 12, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> You seriously think that powder puff could filed 6-20mm?



Page 55 of "RAF Fighters Part 2" by William Green and Gordon Swanborough. Shows the 6 cannons installed before its first flight at Denham in what looks like a weapons fire testing. 200rpg.

Official site.

Martin Baker History MB3


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 12, 2007)

Shinden

Imagine the surprise if a couple squadrons of these were released after defensive armament on the B-29s were reduced and fighter escorts were relaxed.


----------



## edd (Mar 13, 2007)

1994? heheheheh oops


----------



## Desert Fox (Mar 13, 2007)

The CAC-15 would have been good to see flying in the skies of Australia. Not sure what we would've done with it had it been produced after the war, but imagine the possibilities during the Pacific campaign in WWII! Fastest piston engined fighter ever (have to check my facts there, but im pretty sure she was) against the Zero. Nice!


----------



## Udet (Mar 13, 2007)

A Geschwader of Do-335s scything down a flight of Spitfires.


----------



## Jank (Mar 13, 2007)

Republic P-72. Production went forward but then was cancelled in favor of long range escort fighters and jets.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 13, 2007)

I have a long list of axis aircraft. From the top of my head:

Messerschmitt Bf 109Z
Messerschmitt P 1101
Junkers Ju 248
Junkers-Argus attack aircraft (or the EF 126)
Focke Wulf P III or P IV
Focke Wulf P VI (aka Flitzer)
Arado Ar 240C or Ar 440
Lippisch P 20 (turbojet Komet)
Henschel Hs 123 (again)
Henschel Hs 132
Dornier Do 26 (as a long-range recon with Hohenthwiel)
Dornier Do 435
Focke Achgelis Fa 284 (flying crane)

Fiat G.56
Ambrosini SAI.403
Caproni Ca.331! (my absolute favourite!)
Savoia Marchetti SM.91
Fiat AS.14
CANT Z.1018 Leone

and a whole bunch of Jap fighters and the Ohka rocket version.
Kris


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 13, 2007)

Well then. Don't bust a spleen finding handful of favorites.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 13, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Caproni Ca.331! (my absolute favourite!)
> 
> Kris



Why?


I never heard of the Focke Achgelis Fa 284.

Thanks.. very cool


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 14, 2007)

B-36 Peacemaker- This thing will make peace with Japan all right by ruining all its cities. This thing had the largest wingspan of any plane ever, and could fly from the US to Europe, drop its bomb-load and fly back without refueling. It was ready to go by war's end but sadly was never really deployed although a few were deployed as spy-planes... With its bombload Japan would really be on its knees with each raid that got through...


----------



## Jank (Mar 14, 2007)

The B-36 is the largest warplane ever produced and used in active service.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 14, 2007)

But it was never actually used for bombing so far as I am aware. It never was used in Korea, or Malaya or anywhere.


----------



## Jank (Mar 14, 2007)

Yes. And it is still the largest warplane ever produced that actively served.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 14, 2007)

I just wish that it had had the chance to prove itself. Maybe a regular pasting from squadrons of those things would have made the atomic bombs unnecessary...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> B-36 Peacemaker- This thing will make peace with Japan all right by ruining all its cities. This thing had the largest wingspan of any plane ever, and could fly from the US to Europe, drop its bomb-load and fly back without refueling. It was ready to go by war's end but sadly was never really deployed although a few were deployed as spy-planes... With its bombload Japan would really be on its knees with each raid that got through...


ahhhh - NO....

The first B-36s entered service in 1948 - The prototype didn't fly until 1946. Although its development began in 1941 it was a really slow gestation period for the design and contract as other projects were given priority.

No B-36 flew prior to 1946...


----------



## Parmigiano (Mar 14, 2007)

So many that I would had seen in flight...

the G56 of course











then some of the non conventional projects of Richard Vogt at Blohm&Voss, like the P208, P210 etc.






and one (for me) of the most beautiful planes, the Hughes XF11


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> ahhhh - NO....
> 
> The first B-36s entered service in 1948 - The prototype didn't fly until 1946. Although its development began in 1941 it was a really slow gestation period for the design and contract as other projects were given priority.
> 
> No B-36 flew prior to 1946...



That's because it was so slow it took five years from brake release in 1941 to N2 in 1946.

Without fighter protection that beast would have been slaughtered.


----------



## Treize (Mar 15, 2007)

How about "plane you wish had gotten into combat quicker or more smoothly". 

As much of a 4th FG devotee as I am, I still wonder what the 56th could have done with the P-47M if they hadn't had such long lasting teething issues with it. Outstanding plane, what might they have accomplished if it had gotten into combat smoothly in the winter of 44-45 instead being fequently grounded until the problems were finally ironed out in April?


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 15, 2007)

Was just reading about the -229. Thinking about the newly built Me-262 that flies today, who knows, maybe we'll see a -229 fly one day....siiiiigh!
Other than that my fellow forum travellers, I think that you've already mentioned most of the X-planes that I'd have loved to see in service in WWII.


----------



## Jank (Mar 15, 2007)

Yes Treize. Except for the range issue, it is difficult to see what role the Mustang would have performed better.

I have read that in the field they were pushing it to around 485mph (10-15mph over the purported maximum speed). The Thunderbolt was no longer just high altitude performer. She also had a 3,775fpm climb at S/L.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 16, 2007)

Spitfire Mk III:

Essentially the Mk VIII airframe with clipped tips, more fuel, new landing gear and a Merlin XX engine. 400 mph Spitfire, should of been flying in squadron numbers in March/April 1941.

Tempest II:

Faster, smoother, more manouverable version of the Tempest V.

MB. 5.

Take the cooling system rear fuselage of a P-51, marry it to the wings and nose of a Griffon engined Spitfire and, well, you get the idea.

Whirlwind Mk II

1260 hp Peregrines (a 40% increase in power), combined with an extra 300 miles range, cross feed tanks and new Rotol high activity props. Should of been escorting Sterlings, Halis and Lancs, but Fighter Commmand never really considered long-range daylight escort its job.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 18, 2007)

I still think in the Pacific Theatre the B-36 Peacemaker would have done a better job of fire-bombing Japan than the B-29 as it is just larger, and longer flying it could carry more bombs to drop and if it could have been manufactured in similar time to a B-29 which it was largely looking like the same aircraft only larger, it could really have won the war over Japan without the need for the atomic bombs. Especially if it was escorted by large numbers of P-38 Lightnings over the targets with orders to destroy anything that moved or didn't move...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> it could really have won the war over Japan without the need for the atomic bombs.


All it would of meant was less aircraft for more bang. It wasn't necessarily going to destroy cities any better than the B-29 nor was it going to sway the determination of the Japanese leadership. Only seeing one of their cities obliterated by one bomb was the answer...


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 18, 2007)

I thought the Japanese leadership was starting to lose ground and the only reason the atomic bomb was dropped was to make sure the Russians didn't beat the US to Japan. I had thought that was the subconscious reason for that decision rather than a more prolonged bombing campaign which could have done just as good a job of it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> I thought the Japanese leadership was starting to lose ground and the only reason the atomic bomb was dropped was to make sure the Russians didn't beat the US to Japan. I had thought that was the subconscious reason for that decision rather than a more prolonged bombing campaign which could have done just as good a job of it.



NOPE - Read David Jablownski's book "Wings of Fire." Although the Japanese navy was just about destroyed they still had about 8000 combat planes. Very few on Tojo's staff would even think about surrendering and even after the second atomic bomb was dropped there were many leaders in the Japanese military that still wanted to push for one last battle "just to save face." The Russians were nothing more than gold diggers and seeing that big mushroom cloud made them think twice about making any advancements in the region although they would have you to believe that the US dropped the bomb "just to scare them."

With or without the B-36 entering service in time to fly in the Pacific was irrevalent - the out come would of been the same.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 18, 2007)

Just a question on speculative history. I had just questioned that outcome but then it could have gone either way without the Russian pressure...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 18, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Just a question on speculative history. I had just questioned that outcome but then it could have gone either way without the Russian pressure...


You're damned right it would of gone either way without the Russian pressure - They had nothing to repel that huge fleet in the Pacific Ocean had they tried something stupid...


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 18, 2007)

Agreed so it is one of those questions that could have gone either way, because while Japan may have still been stubborn without Russia there might not have been that need to crack Japanese resistance so quickly...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2007)

The need to crack Japan quickly was not really because of Russia but rather the quickest way to end the war with minimal casualties. Russia was just a side note.


----------



## BAGTIC (Mar 29, 2007)

Grumman F8


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

I mentioned the Z.1018 and Ca.331. I was going to post some more about them but forgot about it. So...

The first one is the CANT Z.1018 Leone. IIRC it flew for the first time in 1940 and was an improved Z.1007. Because it too had two 1350 hp engines it can easily be compared to the Ju 88. However it was much faster with a maximum speed of 524 km/h. I assume it could carry the same bomb load as the Z.1007, which is 2000 kg theoretically but usually 1200 kg. It also had a more effective (= all-round) armament of 5 MGs. Personally I find it especially interesting to note that it could be build out of wood or out of metal. Building such an aircraft out of wood would make it very cheap while retaining its excellent performance. There was also a heavy fighter and a night fighter version planned. This one was supposed to have stronger engines making it capable of speeds of up to 395 mph! In April 1944 American bombers destroyed the production lines and also some Z.1018s which were ordered by the Luftwaffe...

The second one is the Caproni Ca.331 Raffica. Originally it was a four-place light reconnaissance bomber (this version obtained designation Ca.331A) and flew for the first time in August 1940. In the spring of 1941 the prototype was transferred to official testing where it showed good flying and combat characteristics. However, Regia Aeronautica voted against production because "the aircraft has a too uncommon construction". Besides "uncommon" construction the aircraft had one additional large deficiency in the eyes of the Regia Aeronautica: it used many duralumin elements, and duralumin was mainly supplied from Germany. Aircraft was returned to Caproni, and was then transferred to the Luftwaffe test center in Rechlin. The Luftwaffe highly estimated the aircraft's flight qualities - one test pilot is suppose to have called it "kolossal gut!" - and planned to order 1000 aircraft in the combat training version with dual control under designation Ca.331G. After the first prototype the second prototype (MM.428) was a night fighter. This version had the designation Ca.331B. After the beginning of the allied air raids in 1942 the Regia Aeronautica planned to order 1000 series Ca.331B. But this order remained only on paper and only one additional prototype was built. The first prototype Ca.331B was tested with the complete armament during August 1943. This aircraft was also planned to be used as a fighter-bomber. For these purposes a bomb bay was created in which it could hold a bombload of a total weight of up to 1000 kg. Another option for the Ca.331B was one 500 kilogram bomb and one extra fuel tank with a capacity of 616 liters. It was also planned to create an assault version with a 37-mm gun and FIAT Ra-1050 rc.58 "Tifone" (=DB 605) engines. It was planned that the maximum speed of this aircraft would be 644 km/h. Work on the production of aircraft at the Caproni Bergamaschi plants in Ponte San Peters was working at full speed at the moment of the capitulation of Italy, with a lease to store the fabricated parts of the aircraft on different locations. The finished prototypes of this aircraft were exported to Germany where their tracks were lost. (translated freely from some Russian site) 


I believe a Ca 331B with DB 605s would have made an excellent night fighter with a higher speed and more internal room than the Bf 110G. This version was going to be called the Ca.365. 
Powered with Jumo 211s it would have been an excellent reconaissance bomber while the Z.1018 could also be used as a night fighter and bomber.

Kris


----------



## Parmigiano (Apr 18, 2007)

Here a couple of pics of the CA331. I do have some material on the CANT 1018 Leone, let me know if it may be interesting to translate it

Recon/bomber 1
Recon/bomber 2
Night Fighter


----------



## red admiral (Apr 18, 2007)

The Z.1018 had Alfa Romeo 135 engines (doubled 126s) giving 1350hp (later 1500hp). In 1938 this engine was run on 100-octane fuel and gave 2000hp, but this fuel wasn't available for everyday use so standard 87-oct was used at a lower power. This would increase the speed to around 600km/h.

Also I would have like to the Gloster Meteor with Metrovick F.3 engines (it flew in 1942 with similar F.2 engines). There wouldn't be much argument then about the best jet fighter of the war. It would have made early jets airliners so much cheaper to run as well.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

Isn't she a beauty??

I would like to receive more information on the Leone. PM? No need to translate, I kinda understand the language 

Kris


----------



## red admiral (Apr 18, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I would like to receive more information on the Leone. PM? No need to translate, I kinda understand the language
> 
> Kris



THE GREAT PLANES Community - GOT: The CANT Z.1018

RTF has summarised the story well in this thread.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

Sweeeeeet...

Kris


----------



## Negative Creep (Apr 18, 2007)

What about the Handley Page Halifax? Once they ironed out its early flaws it became a very capable machine, but it's completely overshadowed by the Lancaster


----------



## Civettone (Apr 18, 2007)

Yeah good choice! The Halifax was around earlier and was more versatile than the Halifax. 

Kris


----------



## Parmigiano (Apr 19, 2007)

My info on the Z1018 are the same posted by Red, thank you for sparing me the translation..


----------



## red admiral (Apr 19, 2007)

I found an extra piece to the story of the Z.1018 Leone. A nightfighter version was planned with a cleaned up airframe. Three prototypes were under construction by the armistice. It would have had a Vmax of 580km/h and a frontal armament of 8x20mm cannon.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 19, 2007)

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Apr 20, 2007)

I think these may have been an effective ground attack aircraft. The Junkers EF 126 was to be powered by a single Argus As 044 or later Jumo 226 pulse jet engine. 

The benefit of the pulsejet engine is that it's extremely easy to build and power, as documented by the V 1 flying bomb. The downside is that it is a rudementary engine which causes quite a bit of vibration. Plus, its performance drops at altitude. For that last reason it's no good as a fighter. But as an attack aircraft I think it would be excellent. 

The EF 126 could carry about 400 kgs of bombs or Panzerblitz weapons at a speed of well over 600 km/h at sealevel. Quite an impressive performance for an attack aircraft.

But as said, the vibrations could have caused some problems like on the Me 328 parasite fighter. But this was a very fragile wooden miniature fighter. As the EF 126 was to be used as an attack aircraft it would have had a much strengthened fuselage. Then again there's the problem of weight increase. So perhaps two pulsejet engines for a bigger aircraft design would have been better and more reliable.

_In 1945 Junkers and Argus tried to solve the power loss problems on the EF126 with an improved design with two Argus As-044 Pulso engines. The fuselage was based on the initial center wing and double tail design of the EF126. These rocket engines were mounted at the rear sides of the fuselage. There is no explicit new EF number known for this design. Probably it was developed still as the EF126, but also this can't be proofed by documents today. _

Kris


----------



## Ajax (Apr 21, 2007)

- Horten Ho 229 “Flying Wing”




__________________

- Armstrong Whitworth A.W.52




__________________

- XF-85 Goblin


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2007)

Well the 229 atleast flew...


----------



## Civettone (Apr 22, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I have a long list of axis aircraft. From the top of my head:
> 
> Messerschmitt Bf 109Z
> Messerschmitt P 1101
> ...



There were several I still haven't explained. So in short:


*Messerschmitt Bf 109Z*
A twin Bf 109 much like the Twin Mustang. I think it would have been an excellent stop gap aircraft as it required very little time to develop and no new production needed. The Bf 109Z would have been an excellent Zerstörer, faster than the P-51 and armed with up to 5 30mm cannons. I also think it could have been used as an escort fighter, a reconaissance fighter, a fighter bomber and a anti-Mosquito nightfighter. So within a few months it could have been used instead of the much more expensive Me 410, until the Me 262 would have been ready ('45).

*Messerschmitt P 1101*
Many people talk about the Focke Wulf Ta 183 although the P 1101 was quite similar but was actually built. It would have been built with non-adjustable wings and with the new HeS 011 engine. It would have been the best fighter on earth, superior to the P-80, Me 262, Meteor or Vampire.
Plus, it would have been easy to build. 

*Junkers Ju 248*
aka Me 263. Basically a Me 163 with a double endurance. Was easy to build, easy to fly and with R4M rockets it would have been an excellent point interceptor, for instance in the Ruhr area.

*Focke Wulf P III or P IV*
I don't think the Me 262 was really what the Germans needed: it was complicated, expensive and needed two engines. Germany could not hope to compete with the industry of the allies. That's why I strongly believe in the Volksjäger program which asked for a cheap and simple single jet engined fighter. Of course it shouldn't have been used by the Hitlerjugend but by regular fighter pilots. One could build two or three Volksjäger for the price of one Me 262.
Now, the Volksjäger program was started in (IIRC) September 1944 when it was way too late. So I think it should have started a year earlier. There were few single jet engined fighter designs: the Messerschmitt P 1108, the Lippisch P.20, ... and the Focke Wulf P III (or P IV, the name is uncertain). I prefer the latter because it has the engine on top - so it wouldn't suck up objects on the grass airstrips - and had straight wings which were essential for rapid pilot schooling.

*Focke Wulf P VI (aka Flitzer)*
I like this one because it looks so much like the British De Havilland Vampire. That also makes me believe it was a succesful design even though it never flew.

*Arado Ar 240C or Ar 440*
The improved Ar 240. The Ar 240 was a remarkably fast aircraft, unlike the Me 210 and 410. But it was also unstable. This seemed to have been remedied by the later Arado designs but by then the Me 410 was already in service. Yet, the Ar 240C would have been an excellent night fighter and long-range reconaissance aircraft. I don't see much catching this Ar 240C.

*Lippisch P 20 (turbojet Komet)*
Already mentioned this one with the P III and P IV. The Me 163 was a delight to fly but the problem was its short endurance. The P 20 was like a Me 163 with a turbojet engine. Was also very simply to build and heavily armed. So this too could have been excellent Volksjäger interceptor.

*Henschel Hs 123 (again)*
I love this little aircraft and find it's a pity that it wasn't put back in production. Would have been excellent against partisans and for night nuisance missions but could also be used for daytime missions as they were more manoeuvrable than the Stuka or Hs 129 for dodging enemy fighters.

*Henschel Hs 132*
The well known turbojet dive bomber. Finally a successor to the Stuka (at least as a dive bomber) and excellent for attacks on specific targets (bridges, depots, rail junctions, ...) and naval targets.

*Dornier Do 26 *
Perhaps the most beautiful seaplane ever (aka the Seeadler). It was designed as a transatlantic post and VIP aircraft but because of its great range I think it could have been excellent as a maritime reconaissance aircraft. It would have been used instead of the Fw 200 and Ju 290 because it also had the advantage of landing at sea, where it could be refuelled by U-boats as it had diesel engines. On the other hand, it could also supply U-boats (post, spare parts, wounded people).

*Dornier Do 435/535*
This is the night fighter version and the mixed propulsion version of the Do 335. The Do 435 had a side-by-side cockpit and would have been an excellent night fighter because of its high speed and good endurance. Also as an intruder, outclassing the Mosquito. The Do 535 had a jet engine in the back, and this might have made it a better fighter and especially an escort fighter. Would have been great to see this patrolling the seas or attacking targets far away.

*Focke Achgelis Fa 284 (flying crane)*
The Fa 223 is better known but had a limited carrying capacity. With a BMW 801 engine the Fa 284 could have carried 7 tons. This would have given the Germans a fantastic tactical weapon as it could suddenly fly in heavy weapons and halftracks to difficult terrain or to mountainous areas. Especially in the mountains it could fly in supplies in a few hours where else it would have taken days. Especially interesting because the Germans were often fighting in mountainous terrain.

Kris


----------



## red admiral (Apr 23, 2007)

> Messerschmitt P 1101
> It would have been built with non-adjustable wings and with the new HeS 011 engine. It would have been the best fighter on earth, superior to the P-80, Me 262, Meteor or Vampire.



If the HeS011 engine ever gave it's designed power. It never did even with extensive postwar testing. In the same timeframe the Meteor F.4 appears with uprated engines, longer nacelles and clipped wings. As I said before, fit Metrovick F.3s to the aircraft to massively improve performance.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 24, 2007)

Agree with Red Admiral.

The Meteor Mk IV and Vampire Mk I were both flying before the P.1101 prototype was even fully completed, and would of easily been competitive (particularly the Vampire with uprated Goblin II).

Hard to see how you can label it "the best fighter on earth", when it never even left the ground.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 24, 2007)

I think you mean the Metrovick F.2/4 Beryl not the F.3 since that was a turbofan version (but maby I'm wrong as you said it woul improve Airliners, which a turbofan would). Aniway the Beryl wasn't ready untill after the war's end, though it was an excelent engine and would have done great in the Meteor (at up to 4000 lbf thrust). Though the design was still was quite complex ans not nearly as easy to repair compared to the Derwent V and they were cheaper.
The F-4 was operating pretty much at its limit with 3,500 lbf Derwent V engines. So more powerful ones would be pointless, except for improving rate of climb. (Beryls were tested in the Mk 4 as were R.R. Avon, but at altitude full throttle in level flight would likely push the craft past its .82 mach limit and easily in a dive) The longer nacelles would be about the same as those used with the Beryl. see: The Gloster Meteor

Though the engine was still excelent and comparable to the J35 or J34 engines in the us. (though lighter than the J35 but not designed with an afterburner as the J35 later was.)

Also the P.1101 was developed into the Bell X-5 which was supersonic, though with far more advances and twice the thrust the 011 would have ever made. Too bad the HeS-30 was canceled, it was the best class 1 engine and possibly the best engine of the war, 2 paired engines being superior to the 011 in almost all ways and most other class 2 engines as well. It would also have been ready much sooner since its prototype was running at full power around the same time as the 004A. Other class 2 engines like the 004H or BMW's design would have been better chouces to concentrate on for class 2 development.


----------



## Instal (Oct 25, 2007)

This may have been brought up before but I didn't read all 35 pages. For me it's a no brainer, the Avro Arrow if for no other reason than to prove to those that doubt, that this would have been a world beater. Not to mention that the ****ards wouldn't have waisted millions of my tax dollars.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 5, 2007)

Ok the turbofan F.3 was what was meant earlier...

The F.2 powered Meteor was nice and would have inadvertently solved the compressibillity problems that went along with the Meteor I/III's centrifugal engines. If the F.2 had been made simpler by using flame cans it would have been much easier to servece, more reliable and easer to build. In this form it might have been ready for production by early '45. The Metrovick Meteor also had an interesting look with those underslung engines... Very different from the standard Mk I


----------



## drgondog (Nov 5, 2007)

Mosin said:


> This topic is abut the planes that were experimental and never saw action. You pick the top 3 that you would have liked to see in the fighting.Mine are the
> XP60 WARHAWK a modified P-40 WARHAWK
> XF5U CORSAIR A modified F4U CORSAIR
> HEINKELL 100 a german fighter
> What are you picks?



First - the P-51G with the 14 S.M. engine (similar to -9) had the potential for 48,000 feet and 510+ mph with a Packard 1650-11

Second - the F8F Bearcat

Third - the Ta152H-1 against both of those

Last the P-80 vs the 262


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2007)

The Ta 152H saw service. It was limited numbers but it saw service.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 6, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Ta 152H saw service. It was limited numbers but it saw service.



Chris - I know it did - 

that comment was to express a desire to see the F8F and P-51G in combat against it.. the 51H was slightly less capable than the XP-51G but had nearly the same performance with a proven production engine and prop.

It would have been interesting tactically also as the Ta 152 could always initiate a high altitude, high speed attack and disengage in a zoom climb from a F8F - but the 51G would have been able to be vectored to cruise into a combat area at very high altitude also.


Jes wonderin'


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2007)

Ah I see, sorry I misunderstood you.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 6, 2007)

1. Dornier Do-335 "Pfeil"
2. Focke-Wulf Ta-153
3. Horten Ho 229 V6


----------



## drgondog (Nov 6, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ah I see, sorry I misunderstood you.



Chris, after re-reading my own post - how could you interpret it the way I intended. I was not very articulate.

It's just that the 51G and F8F kind of represented the next incremental development of the 51 and F6F had Germany's new piston engine fighters created serious problems. Had the land battles been stalled at the Rhine I suspect both the P-51H and P-80 would have been introduced into combat in ETO by April/May... and the Ta 152H would have been picking up steam


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 6, 2007)

Too bad A.A. Griffith was so obsessed with perfection in the F.2. If he'd taken a more conservative design approach, it might have beed workable for production, but he was to focused on building the "best" design. With flame cans and less complex systems it could have been simple and reliable enough for the Meteor in 1944...
Though whittle's design still had it's own advantages of simplicity and durrabillity.

Also the XFU5 was the "Flying Flapjack" not a development of the F4U. I would certainly have liked it to see service though; can tou immagine the confusion of the Japanese seeing such a plane. Verry fast and maneuverable; quite tough and well armmed too.



Mosin said:


> This topic is abut the planes that were experimental and never saw action. You pick the top 3 that you would have liked to see in the fighting.Mine are the
> XP60 WARHAWK a modified P-40 WARHAWK
> XF5U CORSAIR A modified F4U CORSAIR
> HEINKELL 100 a german fighter
> What are you picks?



How about a P-59 with an improved cockpit, higher ammo (and raplace the M4 with an M10, or 2 more .50 cals) and fuel capacity, smaller, more streamlined wings (like the P-63's but with square tips), and more powerful engines (the J31 could have probably gotten up to 2,400 lbf like the Derwent-IV). The large-winged version would have been good for high-alt recon with a ceiling of over 46,000 ft. (kind of a primitive U-2) More reliable engines than the early P-80s and two so you could limp-home with an engine out, plus the inboard ingines made single-enge landings easier tha outboars ones of the Meteor or Me-262.

The XP-83 would have been nice (Adler mentioned it earlier), a decent escort but I'm not sure if it would have been better than the XP-72. Maby If the wings and control surfaces were improved and it had been fully developed, it would have been better than the P-72 with full development (P-47N's wings and , contrarotating props) but who knows.

The FH Phantom would have been nice if it had seen service in '45. Maby it would have been rushed into service if the invasion of Japan had continued.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Chris, after re-reading my own post - how could you interpret it the way I intended. I was not very articulate.
> 
> It's just that the 51G and F8F kind of represented the next incremental development of the 51 and F6F had Germany's new piston engine fighters created serious problems. Had the land battles been stalled at the Rhine I suspect both the P-51H and P-80 would have been introduced into combat in ETO by April/May... and the Ta 152H would have been picking up steam



I dont know I misunderstood you. What do you want me to say?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 12, 2007)

Adler, why'd you say the P-83? It had good range and decent speed, but at that size it would be an ineffective fighter. Maby good for long range recon though. Or possibly ground-attack, especially if cannons were fitted.

I still think the P-59 Airacomet had more potential than its development showed. Its biggest flaw was oversized wings. With wings scaled down to ~84% of the originals, drag would be markedly reduced, and with wing area down to 272 sq ft from 386 sq-ft, wingloading would still be under 47 lb/sq-ft at max load.(12,700 lbs) General streamlining of the fusalage and air intakes would help further. Increase internal fuel capacity and change the armament to 5x .50 cal BMG with 250-300 rpg. Redesign canopy to improve visability. Improve control surfaces. (all metal surfaces plus hydrolic boosting) The reduced drag and increased fuel would significantly increase range. With these improvements and 2,000 lbf J31-GE-5 engines it should have performed on par late model Meteor III. (long nacelles) If redesign work had started right after the tests of the XP-59A in late 1942, the new design should have been ready for testing by mid 1943 and in prodyction by the end of the year. Service evaluation could start in early-mid '44 and full service by early '45. This, of course would have required Bell to put more resourses and top priority for this project, and full access for wind-tunnel testing would have been needed. It would still be surpassed by the P-80 once it had reached its full potential.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Adler, why'd you say the P-83?



Why not? Are there any right or wrongs in this thread if it has to do with aircraft that did not see service?

Now I can not remember exactly what I put the XP-83 in my list over 2 years ago but it probably had to do with the fact that it was a jet escort fighter and it would have been neat to see how it would have developed.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 13, 2007)

Ok, I didn't mean to critisize, I was just curious of your reasoning. I think it would have been good in WWII for the invasion of Japan, but it would be pretty outdated if it saw service in Korea...


----------



## Freebird (Nov 13, 2007)

Instal said:


> This may have been brought up before but I didn't read all 35 pages. For me it's a no brainer, the Avro Arrow if for no other reason than to prove to those that doubt, that this would have been a world beater. Not to mention that the ****ards wouldn't have waisted millions of my tax dollars.



I'll second the choice of the Arrow! Best jet interceptor in the world at the time. Canadian!?! What??  What a bunch of idiots we had in charge at the time to cancel it!

For WWII I would have liked to see the Whirlwind mk.II (redesigned with Merlins replacing Peregrines) I think the flight stats would have been something interesting to see, considering the performance of the original.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 13, 2007)

But the Arrow wasn't anywhere near WWII... On that note though the CF-100 was a nice plane, the Mk 5 could outrun a Sabre, though certainly not outmaneuver it. It was the fastest straight-winged winged fighter (or warplane) ever built. (I think the only straight-winged production a/c able to break Mach 1) It was superior to the F-89 in almost every way. Nice lookin too. Not bad for a plane that was designed breifly after WWII, and Canada's first (and only?) indiginous fighter, and military jet to see service. It was still serving in some roles in the early '80s, similar endurance in time and versitillity as the Meteor. (interesting, as both were their countries' first combat jet designs)

And I've had another look at the XP-83 and it wasn't that much heavier than the F-84 Thunderjet. (which had a thrust/weight of less than .25 in any model when fully loaded, albeit with good aerodynamics, save for the wings) So with some improvements, it could have been a decent fighter. With some 5950 lbf J42 (licenced Nene with W/I) engines it would have dramatically more thrust and at higher fuel effeciency too. With 6x .60 cal guns, it had a nice armament as well But then again, an improved P-59 (same alterations as before) with Derwent V engines would likely be on par with the P-80 and better in some respects, as the Meteor Mk 4 was at its introduction, and again with the F.8 Meteor.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 13, 2007)

As i currently live in Canada, I too, believe the Avro Arrow to have been the best, if not, one of the best jet interceptors in the world at its greatest moments in 1958. 

For WWII, I'd like to have a lightened F4U (lightened by at least 250 - 350 lbs. so as to lighten but not degrade dive/zoom performance) fitted with wing slats... it'd be perfect... its already efficient slotted flaps and slats and lightened load would make it turn like a Spitfire, while the act of lightening the plane would give it an improved climb, turn rate and acceleration... the only things it ever lacked. Paddle prop blades would be good too. 

BUT for something that actually was built, I would have liked to see the Go229 or Do335 enter service.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 14, 2007)

The arrow was a nice plane, too bad politics, and to a lesser extent, lack of viable engines, killed it. The CF-100 was one of the best, if not the best, all-weather interceptors of it's time. Despite the straight wings, the "Canuck" was a transsonic aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> Ok, I didn't mean to critisize, I was just curious of your reasoning. I think it would have been good in WWII for the invasion of Japan, but it would be pretty outdated if it saw service in Korea...



No worries. Sorry if it came across that way. I was down with the flu and therefore irritated by just the smallest things. Sorry about that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2007)

freebird said:


> I'll second the choice of the Arrow! Best jet interceptor in the world at the time. Canadian!?! What??  What a bunch of idiots we had in charge at the time to cancel it!



Go read the thread on the Arrow. The Arrow was a "What if"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2007)

Sgt. Pappy said:


> As i currently live in Canada, I too, believe the Avro Arrow to have been the best, if not, one of the best jet interceptors in the world at its greatest moments in 1958.



How could it have been the best if it never entered service...

Come on guys.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 14, 2007)

He should have said "could have been the best"... Though it has gotten a bit off topic as this was supposed to be what WWII aircraft do you wish had seen service, I believe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> He should have said "could have been the best"... Though it has gotten a bit off topic as this was supposed to be what WWII aircraft do you wish had seen service, I believe.



Correcto Mando....


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Nov 14, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How could it have been the best if it never entered service...
> 
> Come on guys.



*"believe* the arrow to have been the best"

besides, I put a list under that considering the a/c i wanted in service.


----------



## johnbr (Nov 14, 2007)

For me the Plane that should had saw saw service was the Arado 440 very fast and it was said to great to fly and the Heinkel 277 with four bmw 802.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2007)

Sgt. Pappy said:


> *"believe* the arrow to have been the best"
> 
> besides, I put a list under that considering the a/c i wanted in service.



The thread is supposed to be about WW2 aircraft (as others have pointed out)....


----------



## Civettone (Nov 15, 2007)

johnbr said:


> For me the Plane that should had saw saw service was the Arado 440 very fast and it was said to great to fly


Do you have a source for that? 
I recall that the Ar 440 was better to fly than the troublesome Ar 240s but "great to fly"??

Kris


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 15, 2007)

Actually the later prototypes of the Ar 240 were nice aircraft, it was the V1 that was really terrible. The performance of the V3 and later were excellent. To be honest, I really think it should have seen production, it would have made a good multi-role a/c.(good night-fighter, heavy-fighter and recon. a/c) Certainly better than the competing Me 210.

I've seen this other places but this wikipedia is the easiest to find:


> Technical specifications were first published in October 1938, followed by detailed plans later that year. In May 1939 the RLM ordered a run of six prototypes. The first Ar 240 V1 prototype, DD+QL, took to the air on 25 June 1940, and immediately proved to have terrible handling in all three axis, and also tended to overheat during taxiing.
> 
> The handling was thought to be the result of the ailerons being too small given the thick wing, so the second prototype was modified to have larger ones, as well as additional vertical fin area on the dive brakes to reduce yaw. In addition small radiators were added to the gear legs to improve cooling at low speeds, when the gear would normally be opened. Ar 240 V2, KK+CD, first flew on 6 April 1941, and spend most of its life at the factory as a test plane.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigZ (Nov 15, 2007)

I would have liked to have seen the Bugatti Model 100 fly and developed into a fighter.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Nov 15, 2007)

Grumman F7F Tigercat

TO


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 15, 2007)

The Tigercat did see service in the last days of the war. It flew some recon and nightfighting missions but never encountered enemy planes so never saw combat in WWII. Likewise the P-80 and Meteor III saw service but not arial combat, though the Meteor at least scored kills on ground targets...
The F7F also served extensively in Korea.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 10, 2008)

The Fw 187 and the He 100 would have been nasty surprises for the British at thr BOB.


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2008)

Don't know if I already said it but, the Messerschmitt P.1011 the Ta-183.

The P.1101 was a pretty darn close one!


----------



## A4K (Jan 11, 2008)

1. Horten Ho IX V-3 ("Horten Ho.229") - Would have been bloody uncomfortable for the pilot sitting in between two Junkers Jumo 004 turbines, and two MK 103 cannons, but what a BEAUTIFUL aircraft!!!!

2. DeHavilland DH.100 vampire - just a little too late to see wartime service, but would have been an interesting match for the Me 262 and Horten, not to mention absolutely magic to watch in flight.

3. Focke-wulf Ta.183 'Flitzer' - a very potential (and good looking) design, which the Russians managed to develop very nicely into first class aircraft.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 11, 2008)

The vampire should have seen service (maiden flight was only a couple months after the meteor), but the Brits seemed more interested in the Meteor and De Havilland was preoccupied with Mosquito production and development of the Hornet.

With 004Ds the Ho 229 wouldn't have been as uncomfortable as at least you didn't have to worry about the engine fires. (at least not nearly as much) And the MK 103s would have been less uncomfortable to operate than MK 108s due to the much reduced muzzel blast.


I like the P.1011 for the practicallity of borrowing the wings from the Me 262 (outboard of the engines) and other expediatory development additions, but I still don't like the HeS-011 that much, as its development was lagging for production quality, though perhaps the 004D could be used as an intrim, or maby the powerful 003D which Delcyro mentioned on a He 162 topic.


----------



## dark child (Jan 11, 2008)

XP60 WARHAWK a modified P-40 WARHAWK 
XF5U CORSAIR A modified F4U CORSAIR 
HEINKELL 100 a german fighter too


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 12, 2008)

XP-60 was no better than planes already in service in the USAAF.

XF5U was the "Flying Flapjack," you may have meant the F4U-5 which did see post-war service, or the Goodyear F2G "Super-Corsair" but it was slower than the F4U-4 and had control and structural problems, though the rate of climb was amazing.

Agree on the He-100.

The P-47J or P-72 at ~500 mph would have been a bad surprise for the German Jets, though the P-72 probably wouldn't have been ready for service until the war's end while the P-47J could have been. (pending the same engine issues that plagued the P-47M which were solved by the advent of the P-47N) And either way the more streamlined, tight-cowled, fan-cooled nose and engine mount should have been used on the later P-47's even if the J model wasn't produced. (maby even used on late model P-47Ds) The better streamling should 10-20 mph to the P-47s' top speed without introducing new difficulties or reliabillity issues.

But other than the He-100 and Fw-187 there aren't many early-war planes which would have really helped more than the way things were. Maby the Gloster F.5/34 with a Pegasus or Taurus engine to supplement the RAF (ie a fighter not relying on the merlin and tougher, with its radial engine as well as other advantages over the Spitfire and especially the Hurricane, like climb rate and visibility and possibly maneuverabillity and speed-at least compared to the Hurricane), or for use with the FAA, though the need for carrier-based fighters wasn't that great in their case. (no carrier fighters to oppose, only bombers and patroll craft like the Fw-200 to worry about as far as airborne threats are concerned)

Possibly a fully developed P-42 (with cooling issues worked out) would have been of intrest to the USN as it outperformed the Wildcat, concivably retaining this even with the added carrier equipment, and would have been about as tough and well-armmed and with longer range as well. (the P-40 and other liquid-cooled designs not been favorable in the Navy's eyes due to the Flamable coolant, though pre-mixed 70/30 glycol/water was nonflamable, and due to the lower damage resistance which was even mor important when over water.) It also had the potential for growth along with improvements to the P-40 and to the R-1830 engine. (the R-1820 being too wide to practically benifit from the improved streamlining.)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 13, 2008)

Again, I don't mean to critisize, and you're entitled to your oppinion, but I'm curious about why the P-60? (certainly better than the P-46 though...)

I'm still not sure where this confusion of the XF5U is coming from...

It would have been nice if at least one single-engined fighter design using a turbocharged Allison V-1710 had seen service though... 

I wonder how the P-46 would have done with a turbo, though the whole light-weight, short-range high-performance class of a/c turned out to be fairly usless as offensive weapons, though decent interceptors, but the P-46 lacked armament for that.


----------



## A4K (Jan 14, 2008)

Kool kitty, you're right with the vampire, for some reason I'd remembered it as first flying in '45.

Regarding the Horten though, improved engines or not, the pilot would still be deaf in a week, I reckon!


----------



## Henk (Jan 14, 2008)

A4K said:


> Kool kitty, you're right with the vampire, for some reason I'd remembered it as first flying in '45.
> 
> Regarding the Horten though, improved engines or not, the pilot would still be deaf in a week, I reckon!



No mate, the fact that the aircraft proved to be a very well fighter during tests and I do not think that the engine noise would be a problem for the pilot.

Horten 229 flying wing, would be great to see one fly.


----------



## johnbr (Jan 14, 2008)

How about the Blohm+Voss P.197 with two bmw 3306
BV P.211 with bmw 003D every time I see it I see the F86.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jan 15, 2008)

You know what made the BMW 003D so powerful? The same thing that allowed the HeS-30 (HeS-006) to produce thrust on par with the 004 (and possibly better, certainly if development had continued) which is the use of a reaction type compressor in which compression occurs through roughly equal amounts in the rotors and stators. This configuration is ~10% more efficient than the typical rotor-accelerates air, stator compresses layout, and even more efficient compared to the 004's "impulse type" compressor in which ~80% of compression is done by the rotors and the staitors are mainly to guid and smooth-out airflow.

The drawbacks of this layout are that the compressor and stator blades require careful bachining and the use of thrust bearings is required. In the other extreme the 004B could afford to use compressor blades made of stamped steel which greatly simpified production and didn't require the use of cutting steel which made the 004 a very practical design to produce, especially considdering the condition German industry was in by mid/late 1944. (then again, with the rapad progress seen with the HeS-30 in late '41 and early '42 just prior to its cancelation, its conceivable that production could have started in early 1943, maby late 1943 with a shift to non-strateighic materials)


----------



## Civettone (Nov 19, 2009)

Sorry for bringing this old one back but I read today about an interesting fighter, the Republic P-44 Rocket.

It was basically a P-43 Lancer with the R-2800 engine of the later P-47. I like it because of its expected performance (over 400 mph), high climb rate and because it would have been a modified P-43 which means that it could have been taken into production rather easily.







Seversky Aircraft and Republic Aviation



> While the XP-47 program was underway, Republic engineers were looking to improve the performance of the P-43. The result was a contract to develop the lightweight XP-44. Based upon the P-43 airframe, Republic planned to install the Pratt Whitney R-2180 engine in a reworked Lancer. However, this powerplant did not produce the expected horsepower and the design team upgraded to the Wright R-2600. This engine made a reliable 1,600 hp. Yet, it proved to be unsuitable for turbo-supercharging. Finally, good fortune smiled on the XP-44 in the form of the P&W R-2800 Double Wasp. With a contract for 80 examples in hand, Republic set out to modify a P-43 airframe to take the new powerhouse 18 cylinder engine.
> 
> To understand how important the R-2800 engine was to become, it is essential to know that many of America�s best fighters and bombers of WWII were powered by this redoubtable engine. These include, but is not limited to, the P-47 Thunderbolt, the F4U Corsair, the F6F Hellcat and the B-26 and A-26 bombers. The R-2800 that was to be fitted to the XP-44 produced 1,850 hp. Later variants used in the P-47M and P-47N produced as much as 2,800 and considerably more (up to 3,600 hp) on dynamometers.
> 
> ...


Kris


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 19, 2009)

The Skyraider!

That would have been great to have in service in 1945.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 19, 2009)

The twins, Gloster F.9/37, Fw-187, MiG-5 (a.k.a. Dis), Su-8.

Then, Su-6, Miles M.20 (as FAA carrier-borne fighter), P-47J, later developments of Mig-3 (I-200 to -220).

Of the planes that were produced in numbers, but were just too late: Sea Fury, F8F, F7F, P-51H, P-82.


----------



## piet (Nov 19, 2009)

HORTEN 229!!!!!


----------



## drgondog (Nov 19, 2009)

P-51H, an earlier introduction of the F7F, the P-80, more visibility to He 162 and more Ta 152.


----------

