1937-42: airforce on a budget

The Basket · Feb 17, 2020

To be honest Sweden is the best example of how to build an air force on a limited budget.

The Kriegsmarine should have been at the bottom of the sea during the Norwegian campaign.

Bit like Croatia and it's obsolete MiG-21s. If that's your air force then you have to question the point of it.

tomo pauk · Feb 17, 2020

The Basket said:
...
Bit like Croatia and it's obsolete MiG-21s. If that's your air force then you have to question the point of it.

The fixed-wing, 'combat part' of our airforce is a laughing stock here.

swampyankee · Feb 17, 2020

I sometimes wonder what the smallest practical combat air force would be. I suspect that if a country can't support at least two dozen reasonably modern combat aircraft, it's probably better off just giving up.

Glider · Feb 17, 2020

swampyankee said:
I sometimes wonder what the smallest practical combat air force would be. I suspect that if a country can't support at least two dozen reasonably modern combat aircraft, it's probably better off just giving up.

I would suggest two options:-
a) Something that would be important in peace such as fishery protection and give up everything else.
b) Concentrate on trainers / armed trainers such as Hawk and Hawk 200. These are fairly cheap and can be very effective in the sort of limited conflict that is so common, whilst keeping the aircrew experienced.

The Basket · Feb 17, 2020

New Zealand has no air combat capability.

So we can invade anytime we want.

National symbol is a bird that can't fly.

So them Croatian Fishbeds gonna be stars of this show

tomo pauk · Feb 17, 2020

Shortround6 said:
Keeping a fuselage and designing new wings and landing gear doesn't really save a whole lot of money. You still need a good prop (fixed pitch won't do) you need radios, you need an instrument panel, all a lot more expensive per pound or kilogram than the fuselage framework and covering.
Sticking large diameter 9 cylinder radials on the 109 (or similar small airframe) doesn't save much either. Not without a time traveler to help design a low drag cowling.
Lets please remember that the P-36 has 22% more drag (and lost exhaust thrust?) than the early long nose P-40. And the P-36 used a 14 cylinder two row radial of medium diameter.

I didn't suggest sticking a large diameter radial engine on aircraft that were not conceived with a large diameter radial already; 9 cyl radials were not onyl engines I've suggested either. P-36 didn't lost all of exhaust thrust, exhausts were pointing backward.
Fixed pitch prop will do (even if the 2-pitch or CS prop is better), we're not trying to lift many tons of stuff from the ground. Spitfire was doing 360 mph on a fixed-pitch prop.
Small airframe = less drag (as force) & weight than big airframe.

None of the Biplanes can be easily modified into monoplanes, You just can't leave the top wing off. I am not saying you said to do that but the Gladiator used two pretty much equal size wings. 323 sq ft, take one wing off and you have 161.5 square ft. except you have to either build a really heavy wing or make one using much thicker airfoil for strength. You can use a tapered wing with a longer cord near the fuselage to keep the thickness ratio down. You may want to use different attachment points from the spars to the fuselage than the Biplane used

161.5 sq ft is a wing area between I-16 and Fokker D.XXI, neither of whom used really heavy wing, nor very thick. Granted, the wing will ne thicker than on the biplane. Yes, we'd need different attachment points for the wing.

I would suggest that you check out the WIki entry on the Hawker Fury for an idea of the size of the market. Yugoslavia being the largest user of non British Furies. They bought 10 and built 40 under licence. However Yugoslavia had flown this in 1935 and built 12 more.
By 1938 they were flying this
but only ordered 12 more.
The market for 2nd rate fighters was going to be small, too small to really pay for extensive R&D to develop monoplanes using Biplane fuselages.

What a 2nd rate fighter is for country A, might be a 1st rate fighter for a country X. Especially if the country A is not high on the priority list of a country X, Y or Z - the Netherlands was on place 9 on priority list for Spitfire export, Greece was on place 10.
US aircraft for Sweden situation?

swampyankee · Feb 17, 2020

The Basket said:
New Zealand has no air combat capability.

So we can invade anytime we want.

National symbol is a bird that can't fly.

So them Croatian Fishbeds gonna be stars of this show

Except for the minor problem that New Zealand is so far away from anyplace that the Fishbeds would be literally fish beds before they got there.

The Basket · Feb 17, 2020

They can operate from secret base in Antarctica.

Kevin J · Feb 17, 2020

The Basket said:
They can operate from secret base in Antarctica.

Nazi UFOs will shoot them down.

swampyankee · Feb 18, 2020

Kevin J said:
Nazi UFOs will shoot them down.

The nazi UFOs would help, but got into a fatal argument with the Lizard People.

nuuumannn · Feb 18, 2020

swampyankee said:
I sometimes wonder what the smallest practical combat air force would be. I suspect that if a country can't support at least two dozen reasonably modern combat aircraft, it's probably better off just giving up.

I was gonna say exactly that about New Zealand. At the time of the RNZAF combat force disbandment, three squadrons operated fast jets of two different types; A-4K Skyhawks, 17 of, and MB-339CBs, 14 of. The RNZAF was never going to be able to repel a foreign power determined enough to reach NZ, but that was the point, no one who had the capability would bother anyway, it's not like taking NZ would actually achieve anything. Does the USSR need a better rugby team, or maybe some kiwifruit orchards, or sheep? We got plenny of those...

The RNZAF's strength is, as it was then, in what it brings to the table in a joint force scenario; the A-4s woiuld have operated in attacking other countries' forces as part of NZ defence commitments to alliances NZ was a part of. They also offered, specifically, a training role for the RAAF and RAN, whose Skyhawks a few of them were before modification at any rate.

Also, as far as an invading navy is concerned, we have foiling yachts that can outrun a frigate and the America's Cup to prove it!

nuuumannn · Feb 18, 2020

On the subject of small air forces before WW2, the RNZAF entered the war with second hand Blackburn Baffins, Vickers Vildebeests and two Gloster Grebes as its only single-seat fighters, and even then they weren't armed. The national airline had more sophisticated and better performing aircraft in Lockheed Electras and Short Empire flying boats, although there were Vickers Wellingtons on order, which never reached New Zealand and were diverted to form 75 (NZ) Sqn of the RAF. In 1942 the first P-40s, Hudsons and Harvards arrived to modernise things up a bit.

The Basket · Feb 18, 2020

The conquered Australia and with New Zealand defenceless you in big trouble.

Pray Emus can't swim.

swampyankee · Feb 18, 2020

The Basket said:
The conquered Australia and with New Zealand defenceless you in big trouble.

Pray Emus can't swim.

Emus are no trouble. Cassowaries, now.....

1937-42: airforce on a budget

More options

The Basket

Senior Master Sergeant

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

swampyankee

Chief Master Sergeant

Glider

Captain

The Basket

Senior Master Sergeant

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

swampyankee

Chief Master Sergeant

The Basket

Senior Master Sergeant

Kevin J

Banned

swampyankee

Chief Master Sergeant

nuuumannn

Major

nuuumannn

Major

The Basket

Senior Master Sergeant

swampyankee

Chief Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads