Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Maybe the CR.42DB (CR.42 with a DB601A engine) for the Italians? First flight was in March 1941 and first production order for 150 airframes was placed in May 1941, but a shortage of engines resulted in the order being cancelled. Vmax clean was 320 mph during tests.
Also Martin Baker made a far better job of cooling it than Napier.For the RAF: finally a place for the MB.2?
The Dagger VIII engine was making it's best power down low - 1000 HP at 8750 ft, but just 800 HP at 15000 ft - making it better for the low altitudes where we can expect the FB to be used, and not so good for bombing Germany from 17000-18000 ft. Does not draw on Merlins' and Hercules' production - RAF has barely a place for the Dagger either as a fighter engine or a bomber engine. Also no draw for production of Spitfires and Hurricanes ordered for the FC.
Being air cooled makes it less susceptible to the battle damage, does not add the drag & weight via the coolant radiator.
MB.2 might get the retractable U/C for lower drag, even it the proposed system was barely more streamlined than what P-35 had. Nip & tuck is still needed, like a better prop, exhausts (pointed backward), protection for pilot and fuel.
did they?Also Martin Baker made a far better job of cooling it than Napier.
You are going to be hard pressed to keep it smaller than a P-40.
1939-40 air cooling and lack of exhaust thrust (design perspective)
1900lb engine.
The US is going to want at least 200 US gallons of fuel (P-36 has around 160gal without drop tank and without self sealing. P-39 was supposed to have 200gal before self sealing)
As you have said, it is a thirsty engine (I agree, 150 US gal/hr at 1275hp at 12,000ft, more at full power)
Just for context
XSB2C-1 photo may date from Aug 1941 as several features in the photo series date from then.
Brewster Buccaneer prototype, summer of 1941
Just the state of the art in cowling, exhaust in 1940-41 in the US.
You need every bit of the 1400hp to to overcome the drag compared to the V-1710 in the P-40.
Granted you can make the Fuselage considerably smaller and no cowl guns) but you can't stick this thing on a P-36/40 without longer landing gear legs.
Was the doctrine in place for fighter bombers? The Fairey Battle and Junders Ju87 were specialised tactical bombers, for which the need for air superiority was not obvious enough.It was suggested,IIRC by S Shortround6 at another thread, that Allies might've been better advised to procure fighter-bombers instead of the 1-engined bombers in the similar time frame. So here it is - 1-engined bombers, like the Ju-87, Ba.65, Su-2, Il-2, Battle, A-24, different Japanese 1-engined bombers are not proceeded with, instead the respective countries make and operate fighter-bombers. Whether these are modified historical fighters, or bespoke A/C. All while using the engines, aerodynamics, materials and weapons as it was historically the case; no hand-waving of thousands of the best engines just for this, the FBs will mostly be using what was historically used on the bombers that don't get produced, or the equivalents/modifications available.
Yes, for some countries/AFs this will require changes in doctrine. Obviously the FBs designed in 1937 will be less capable than the ones mooted in 1940.
For the French, since they were mostly using two-engined tactical bombers, the fighter bombers replace those, but can use bigger & better engines.
Idea behind the Battle was strategic bomber on the cheap. That backfired badly.Was the doctrine in place for fighter bombers? The Fairey Battle and Junders Ju87 were specialised tactical bombers, for which the need for air superiority was not obvious enough.
The Hawker Typhoons were successful fighter bombers because they were fast at low altitude and they were sturdy. They were in fact designed as high altitude interceptors. The universe did not enfold as intended.
Spec F.18/37 that led to the Typhoon called for a high speed single seater fighter as a replacement for the Hurricane & Spitfire. The speed requirement was 400+mph at 15,000 ft. While the service ceiling was to be 35,000+ft, that was not much more than Spitfire I was capable of in 1939.The Hawker Typhoons were successful fighter bombers because they were fast at low altitude and they were sturdy. They were in fact designed as high altitude interceptors. The universe did not enfold as intended.
I-207 (required low-octane B-70 gasoline, could carry a 500 kilogram bomb load), then I-153 (required B-78 gasoline). The I-16 was less suitable as FB due to difficulties with the suspension of bombs larger than 100 kg when taking off from the ground (although there were examples of successful ground attack missions when launching from the TB-3 in the air). According to some reports, the I-153 suffered lower losses and inflicted similar damage when bombing ground targets compared to the Il-2 (the latter's concept was rather flawed). "Upgrade" of I-180 with M-82 was I-185. A "bigger wing" means rather a completely new aircraft in this case. But the idea to use widely biplanes as FB in the soviet AF seems very reasonable.Soviet Union - they were already operating the biplanes and I-16 as fighter-bombers. For the new generation, something like I-180 with a bigger wing? Upgrade with M-82 engine when available.
SeeBackk in the Great war, there were fighters that were also supposed to toss grenades and small bombs on the ground units, as this A/C for example. Granted, many lessons of the ww1 were soon forgotten.
Answered by EwenS but many times designed as changes considerably when the plane is "introduced as" in combat service in the first squadron/s.Neither the engine chosen nor wing size point out that Typhoon was designed as a high altitude interceptor.
A "bigger wing" means rather a completely new aircraft in this case. But the idea to use widely biplanes as FB in the soviet AF seems very reasonable.
"Upgrade" of I-180 with M-82 was I-185
It was still a consequent development of the I-180 with the same technology originating from the I-16. The situation with the engine development in the USSR at that time was rather very disappointing and required more flexibility from aircraft designers. The I-180 was equipped with M-87/M-88 and the I-185 initially was designed for M-90 of the same line originating from Gnome-Rhône 9K/14K. But the concept of the I-185 (a relatively small fighter with a dense layout and high wing loading) made it less suitable for FB role. Small biplanes with relatively low wing loading and high maneuverability with sufficient speed characteristics were better suited for this purpose.A lot of times swapping engines results it a completely new aircraft.
It was suggested,IIRC by S Shortround6 at another thread, that Allies might've been better advised to procure fighter-bombers instead of the 1-engined bombers in the similar time frame. So here it is - 1-engined bombers, like the Ju-87, Ba.65, Su-2, Il-2, Battle, A-24, different Japanese 1-engined bombers are not proceeded with, instead the respective countries make and operate fighter-bombers. Whether these are modified historical fighters, or bespoke A/C. All while using the engines, aerodynamics, materials and weapons as it was historically the case; no hand-waving of thousands of the best engines just for this, the FBs will mostly be using what was historically used on the bombers that don't get produced, or the equivalents/modifications available.
Not without resorting to the old "jiggery pokery "If the starting point is 1937, I wonder if the powers-that-be would require a fighter-bomber to have defensive armament, as they did for the 1-engine bombers of the time.
The Defiant with fixed forward guns and the rear turret and fitted with a bomb rack or racks could do the job.
If the radiator was moved to under the nose, Miles M.20 style, a bomb could be carried under the fuselage.