1940: ideal fighter for the RAF

[Shortround6]

Further on the subject: the RAF was fielding the BP Defiant, certainly not that cheap/simple as Hurricane, or either Spitfire, with it's turret, greater overall dimensions weight. It was also feturing fully enclosed main U/C. One of the planes with enclosed U/C were the Macchi fighters, too.

As for planes with high speed achieved on modest power: Yak-3, He-100, P-51 51A.

Solvable by better flap system?

He-100 featured also the wing of modest area, and it was fast, even with 'classic' cooling. About P-51, well, much is already written.

Of your 3 examples 2 carried a rather modest armament. One might go so far as to say their armament was crap. None of them were combat capable in 1940.

In 1940 the British, for an airplane produced in large numbers, are pretty much stuck with 6-8 .303 machine guns. Given that the choices become some what limited. HE 100 might carry 5, you just need to redesign and enlarge the wing root. Yak can carry 3 without sticking them in the wing.

Fully enclosed landing gear certainly wasn't unheard of or unused, but it is one more complication. And you don't really know what it is going to do until you test it as you don't know what the local airflow is on any given airframe until you do test. You can't say Plane X picked up 8mph therefore plane Y will pick up 8mph.

 

[nuuumannn]

You mean besides the shortage of aluminum for aircraft production in Britain?

What shortage of aluminium, Dave? Still banging on about this? You need to stop taking quotes from gaming instructions and take notice of what others are posting in disagreement of it.

Further on the subject: the RAF was fielding the BP Defiant, certainly not that cheap/simple as Hurricane, or either Spitfire, with it's turret, greater overall dimensions weight. It was also feturing fully enclosed main U/C.

I suspect the Defiant is not a good example of this, since it was quite slow by comparison to its contemporaries. In saying that however, it was an excellent basis for an effective single-seat fighter, as the proposed P.94, armed with 12 X .303s in the wings. Its structural design was contemporary all metal (with fabric covered control surfaces) with flush rivets and was designed for ease of production and maintenance (although it took awhile for BP to get production going - this was down to the firm, rather than the design, however); it was certainly more advanced than the Hurricane's.

 

[tomo pauk]

Saying that Defiant would've been an excellent basis for effective single seat fighter might be an exaggeration?
edit2: I've used the Defiant to point to the fact that British have designed, produced fielded a fighter more complicated than one I was proposing.

Of your 3 examples 2 carried a rather modest armament. One might go so far as to say their armament was crap.

I agree that He-100 carried weak battery. That more LMGs were not installed one might not jump at conclusion it would be a great engineering effort to install additional 2-3 in wings.
Yak-3 battery was either equal or better than anything fielded in 1939/40, in a single engined fighter. Even for 1944, it was not crap.

None of them were combat capable in 1940.

Of course.
However, no 'ingredient' of Yak-3 or He-100 were beyond state of art of the late 1930s.

In 1940 the British, for an airplane produced in large numbers, are pretty much stuck with 6-8 .303 machine guns. Given that the choices become some what limited. HE 100 might carry 5, you just need to redesign and enlarge the wing root. Yak can carry 3 without sticking them in the wing.

In wing, of course.

Fully enclosed landing gear certainly wasn't unheard of or unused, but it is one more complication.

I've already mentioned BP Defiant as a plane with such mechanism. My proposal does not involve a turret at the back, though *

And you don't really know what it is going to do until you test it as you don't know what the local airflow is on any given airframe until you do test. You can't say Plane X picked up 8mph therefore plane Y will pick up 8mph.

I'm proposing streamlining, and that should add speed.

*added: 1000 of BP Defiants produced in maybe year and a half - British were surely able to produce, even complicated stuff.

edit3: at what time the Hercules was produced with a two-speed supercharger?

 

[Aozora]

edit3: at what time the Hercules was produced with a two-speed supercharger?

AFAIK the Hercules was designed with a two-speed supercharger:

Bristol Hercules Flight 1941

Bristol Hercules Flight 1942

Looking at the Bristol 153 I'm thinking F8F...

 

[merlin]

AFAIK the Hercules was designed with a two-speed supercharger:

Bristol Hercules Flight 1941

Bristol Hercules Flight 1942

Looking at the Bristol 153 I'm thinking F8F...

That's curious - because according to Thetford in referring to the Saro Lerwick - "During its period of service the Lerwick claimed the distinction of being the only R.A.F. flying-boat with sleeve-valve engines." and earlier "Twenty-one Lerwicks were built and the last was delivered in May 1941" It was not a successful aircraft - being withdrawn from service in October 1942 - after only three years service life. Power Plant: Two 1,375 h.p. Bristol Hercules II or IV

 

[Aozora]

That's curious - because according to Thetford in referring to the Saro Lerwick - "During its period of service the Lerwick claimed the distinction of being the only R.A.F. flying-boat with sleeve-valve engines." and earlier "Twenty-one Lerwicks were built and the last was delivered in May 1941" It was not a successful aircraft - being withdrawn from service in October 1942 - after only three years service life. Power Plant: Two 1,375 h.p. Bristol Hercules II or IV

???Your point?

This Flight article on fighter designs, dated 14 March 1940 is interesting and provides some insight into the thinking of the time:

View attachment Fighter Design (14 March 1940).pdf

 

[nuuumannn]

I've used the Defiant to point to the fact that British have designed, produced fielded a fighter more complicated than one I was proposing.

The only thing that was complicated about the Defiant was its turret. It was no more complex to build, maintain or operate than any other aircraft of its era. And it would have made a very good single-seat fighter; its performance would have been better than the Hurricane - as was demonstrated by the prototype Daffy without a turret in trials. This was 1940 after all. The idea was rejected by the Air Minsitry in September 1940 because improvements to the Spitfire and future fighters, such as the Tornado and Typhoon also offered better performance.

 

[merlin]

Aozora: "???Your point?"

Really? I didn't think it was that subtle!? Just pointing out that there was an aircraft in production/service 1939 - 1942 powered by Hercules engines, with its first flight in Autumn of 1938. So its feasible/plausible that a single-seat fighter prototype could fly and be built in the same timescale. It may not be easy, but still possible, though won't have the 1500 hp there're expecting!

 

[Shortround6]

I believe a lot of the modern enthusiasm for the single seat Defiant is based off the ESTIMATED performance. I don't believe flight tests were ever performed on a single seat version WITH a Merlin XX engine. The original Defiant prototype WAS flown as a single seater and it's performance was used to indicate the expected performance. Somehow when fitted with a Merlin XX the two seater only picked up 8mph over the Merlin III version (bigger radiator?) and yet removal of the turret is supposed to add around 50 mph?

You would have thought somebody might have noticed a similar (downward) change in speed to the prototype , which originally flew without turret, when the turret was fitted.

 

[Dogwalker]

As for planes with high speed achieved on modest power: Yak-3, He-100, P-51 51A.

Or the SAI Ambrosini 207. 580 km/h at 4500m with an Isotta Fraschini Delta III RC.40, 750ps at 4000m.
But no free lunch also here. Wings were rather thin (NACA 23015 at the root, 23007 at the tip) and the wingload was rather high. The aircraft was quite agile at speed and at low and medium altitude, but tricky at slow speed and high altitude.

 

[pattle]

The RAF was considering the Reggiane 2000 before the war, it would have been far from ideal though.

 

[Aozora]

Aozora: "???Your point?"

Really? I didn't think it was that subtle!? Just pointing out that there was an aircraft in production/service 1939 - 1942 powered by Hercules engines, with its first flight in Autumn of 1938. So its feasible/plausible that a single-seat fighter prototype could fly and be built in the same timescale. It may not be easy, but still possible, though won't have the 1500 hp there're expecting!

Just being dense at 11:48 am o.n.o. A radial engine fighter could have been useful, particularly with more powerful versions of the Hercules - supposing a single-engine, single-seat fighter did get into production, it is possible that Bristol would have developed a more powerful Hercules more quickly. Thing is what would you call the fighter? Bristol Beaucat? Bristol Bulldog V? Bristol Fighter II?

 

[A4K]

Ideal aircraft IMO: exactly what they had - Spitfire and Hurricane.
The Spitfire for the important role it played in boosting British morale and curbing German assuredness (the psychological war), and the Hurri with it's concentrated firepower to ring up the kills.

 

[merlin]

Just being dense at 11:48 am o.n.o. A radial engine fighter could have been useful, particularly with more powerful versions of the Hercules - supposing a single-engine, single-seat fighter did get into production, it is possible that Bristol would have developed a more powerful Hercules more quickly. Thing is what would you call the fighter? Bristol Beaucat? Bristol Bulldog V? Bristol Fighter II?

Bristol with their '153' proposal was to be powered by the Hercules no idea what they may have called - though 'Buccaneer' has possibilities - matches with the later 'Brigand', likewise with the Boulton-Paul proposal that was look upon with more favour by the Air Ministry - my idea would be to match the 'D' from Defiant, with Dante - as in Dante's inferno - what happens when 4 x 20mm cannon are unleashed !!

 

[merlin]

Ideal aircraft IMO: exactly what they had - Spitfire and Hurricane.
The Spitfire for the important role it played in boosting British morale and curbing German assuredness (the psychological war), and the Hurri with it's concentrated firepower to ring up the kills.

I'd agree with this, it'd be hard to come up with adequate replacements for these two, in my earlier posts, I've sought to suggest plausible additions to these two.

 

[Opel]

No one mentions the Miles M.20 (or am I blind)
1. Off the shelf parts.
2. Easy and cheap to produce (apparently)
3. First 'bubble' type canopy on a fighter (i'll stand corrected if thats not accurate)
4. Faster than a Hurricane I by as much as 20mph. Used a Merlin XX.
5. Higher ammunition capacity than both Spit and Hurri.
6 Longer range than both principle fighters.
7. Tested as shipboard fighter as well.

Was an emergency measure...but sure development could have produced something worthwhile and in a short space of time.

 

[tomo pauk]

Using the Merlin XX on a fighter capable for only 333 mph is a waste of a good engine. Cram the Merlin XX in Spit and new fighter can make maybe 40 mph more - fixed U/C has it's drawbacks.
Comparing the M.20 with Huri I is flatly unfair, the Hurricane with Merlin XX was the Hurricane II and was at least as fast as the M.20. Or, the M.20 with Merlin III (since there was not many Merlin XXs around in the time of BoB) would be good for maybe 310-320 mph?

 

[Opel]

Using the Merlin XX on a fighter capable for only 333 mph is a waste of a good engine. Cram the Merlin XX in Spit and new fighter can make maybe 40 mph more - fixed U/C has it's drawbacks.
Comparing the M.20 with Huri I is flatly unfair, the Hurricane with Merlin XX was the Hurricane II and was at least as fast as the M.20. Or, the M.20 with Merlin III (since there was not many Merlin XXs around in the time of BoB) would be good for maybe 310-320 mph?

Not sure if the comparison is unfair...M.20 was a rushed affair with first flight in September 1940 when the Mk I was still exclusively in service. (first deliveries of the Mk II admittedly started end September beginnnig October.)
Also need to remember that the M.20 was matching speed with the MkII, even with a fixed landing gear.
It was optimised for quick and inexpensive construction when Britain was crying out for fighters, which meets a huge criteria in this thread.
Development potential was probably a major plus against the venerable old Hurricane. An M.20 with retractable landing gear would have enjoyed a significant performance boost.
Being of wood construction... who knows.....a fighter equivalent to the Mosquito.
Last point is maybe stretching it a bit 8)

 

[fastmongrel]

Not sure the M20 would have gone a lot faster with retractable U/C it had a very thick wing optimised for a training aircraft.

 

[tomo pauk]

Not sure if the comparison is unfair...M.20 was a rushed affair with first flight in September 1940 when the Mk I was still exclusively in service. (first deliveries of the Mk II admittedly started end September beginnnig October.)

I'm sure it's unfair, Hurri I vs. M.20. For example, at 20000 ft we are looking at 890 HP vs. 1080 Hp difference - 22% more engine power for the M.20. Another example of unfair comparison is the comparison of one plane's 1st prototype flight, vs. another plane's service era. It would take a major miracle to see M.20 actually fighting LW in 1940?

Also need to remember that the M.20 was matching speed with the MkII, even with a fixed landing gear.

Being able to be as fast as one of the slowest (per installed power, at altitude) fighters might point us that M.20 was rather far away from 'ideal fighter for RAF IN 1940'

It was optimised for quick and inexpensive construction when Britain was crying out for fighters, which meets a huge criteria in this thread.

The other side was crying out for fighters, Britain crying out for fighter pilots?

Development potential was probably a major plus against the venerable old Hurricane. An M.20 with retractable landing gear would have enjoyed a significant performance boost.

The comparison with an obsolete design again point us that M.20 was not the best British could offer. The retracted landing gear eats either into fuel or ammo, and we are still saddled with thick wing (shades of Hurricane Typhoon). I do like the 'power egg' engine installation (something that Spitfire could use?) and clear view canopy, though.

Being of wood construction... who knows.....a fighter equivalent to the Mosquito.
Last point is maybe stretching it a bit 8)

Actually I like this part.