A better FAA twin seat, single engine fighter for 1940?

[ThomasP]

It was a fuel tank. The engines were air-cooled and relatively low powered, about 500 BHP each. Maybe replace them with Kestrels/Peregrins, and put the radiators in the leading edge per Westland? Peregrins would provide at least 50% more power. Move the fuel tanks to the inner/outer wings, and put the REO in the position you suggested?

I have never seen any detailed flight test figures for the D.XXIII so I have no idea if the landing speed/stall speeds were compatible with carrier operations. It would probably need to have greater wing area, or sophisticated high lift flaps.

It might not really be the D.XXIII any more, but an evolved version of the design, closer to the Czech Marton.

 

[Dimlee]

I'm game. But my favourite Fokker for the FAA has to be the D.XXIII.

View attachment 619088
A two seat variant with two Merlins should do the trick. But we must prevent the rear prop striking the deck or eviscerating those tasked with releasing the hook.

I love D.XXIII . But is there an ejection seat in the UK in that period?

 

[Admiral Beez]

I love D.XXIII . But is there an ejection seat in the UK in that period?

Hmm.... good point. What did other centreline pusher propeller aircraft do? Do 335, Kyūshū J7W1, SAAB 21, etc.

The Henschel Hs P.75 was to have an ejection seat. Perhaps Messrs. Martin and Baker can be nudged to pursue their seat rather than complete aircraft.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hmm.... good point. What did other centreline pusher propeller aircraft do? Do 335, Kyūshū J7W1, SAAB 21, etc.

The Henschel Hs P.75 was to have an ejection seat.

Not sure what others did, but the Do-335 had charges to blow the prop off iirc. That's what I'd go with if the decision were mine.

 

[Admiral Beez]

When I think of sleek, aerodynamically sharp looking single engine twin seat aircraft of WW2 the Japanese come to mind.

Like the Fairey Fulmar, the Yokosuka D4Y first flew in 1940, albeit eleven months later. With a 1,400 hp engine the 9,370 lb (gross) D4Y was capable of 340 mph and 2,800 ft/min. Meanwhile, with a 1,300 hp Merlin the 9,672 lb (gross) Fulmar was capable of only 272 mph and 1,200 ft/min. Swap out the D4Y's twin .303 machine guns for cannons and you've got yourself a better Fulmar.

Something similar with a Taurus and then a Hercules? Or keep the Merlin and improve upon the Fulmar's aerodynamics? Start with that oversized air brake radiator under the engine and that dangling tail wheel.

And just look at all these lumpy and protruding surfaces. I think my garden shed's rickety door has tighter closing tolerances than the canopy below.

 

[Shortround6]

When making comparisons it helps to compare apples to apples and not apples to Kumquats

The Fulmar was so slow because it's engine gave full rated power at 6000ft. It did 272mph at 7,250ft aided by RAM. Power fell off at the higher altitudes.

Now please note that a Hurricane IIa did 289mph at 5000ft with a Merlin XX engine giving 1180hp in low supercharger gear. HOWEVER the same plane did 330mph at 18,900ft using 1185 hp in high gear. This would be almost entirely due to the lower drag in the thinner air. Same plane did 320mph at 25,000ft using 940hp.

Engine used in the D4Y-2 was a modified licensed DB 601 and used the variable speed drive to the supercharger like the DB 601, This means the D4Y-2 had several hundred more HP available to it at higher altitudes than the Fulmar did. It might also be interesting to find out how fast the D4Y-2 was at 7,000ft.

Comparing take-off power to top speed at altitude has two major errors.

You want a fast Fulmar? Stick a Merlin X in it and fly it at 19,000ft, too bad that is not where the torpedo planes and low level bombers attacking the ships are but hey, you could have a nearly 300mph Fulmar in 1940. Then Stick Merlin XX engines in the MK II. You might get the Fulmar up to 305-310 at high altitude.

Now to get even more speed we just cut about 90 sq ft from the Fulmars wing to get rid of a lot of drag. Of course the take-off and landing speeds go up and it can no longer operate from some of the RNs shorter or slower carriers but hey, it will be faster

D4Y with V-12 engine

Note the airbrake under the prop.

 

[fastmongrel]

The D4Y didn't have any armour or self sealing tanks. I am not sure but it might not have even had a radio. Load it up to RN standards and it might not be as impressive.

 

[VA5124]

why not bulid a two seat hurricane with a twin charged merlin thats turbo and super charged (something like lanica would do with the s4 rally car in the 80s) youd problay be over 2000 hp and as light as light and seek as the hurricane was it would make a perfect strike fighter / carrier fighter

 

[fastmongrel]

why not bulid a two seat hurricane with a twin charged merlin thats turbo and super charged (something like lanica would do with the s4 rally car in the 80s) youd problay be over 2000 hp and as light as light and seek as the hurricane was it would make a perfect strike fighter / carrier fighter

In the 1940s Turbochargers were big things about the size of a chest of drawers with ducting and intercoolers. You could have either fuel, a turbocharger or a 2nd crewman you can't have them all in a smallish aircraft like a Hurricane

 

[VA5124]

In the 1940s Turbochargers were big things about the size of a chest of drawers with ducting and intercoolers. You could have either fuel, a turbocharger or a 2nd crewman you can't have them all in a smallish aircraft like a Hurricane

im sorry i thought it sounded like a good idea ill see my way out now

 

[Admiral Beez]

im sorry i thought it sounded like a good idea ill see my way out now

Not so fast. Don't let contrarianism scare you off. Your idea has merit, start with the Hurricane and lengthen and enlarge it as needed to fit the machinery and fuel we need to support the 2nd seat.

 

[Shortround6]

The problem isn't just getting a two seat fighter. The problem is meeting the recon requirement and/or the endurance requirement.

Compared to a Hurricane the Fulmar carried about twice the internal fuel 174 imp gal I believe?
It also carried something like 800rpg for the .303s?

Now we have the take-off and landing requirements.

The plane is carrying something like 600lbs more fuel (probably carrying more oil too) and 180-190lbs more ammo.
To keep the same wing loading you need 28 sq ft more wing and that is going to weigh 90-100lbs needing another 3-4 sq ft of wing.

That is just for starters. Figure weight of the large fuel tank/s especially with self-sealing.
Long range radio?
Having to fly several hundred miles towards the carrier to make radio contact to report a sighting is obviously not a good solution.

Just sticking a guy behind the pilot of a single seat short range fighter and let him play with the knobs on the radio doesn't fulfill the actual requirements.

 

[VA5124]

Not so fast. Don't let contrarianism scare you off. Your idea has merit, start with the Hurricane and lengthen and enlarge it as needed to fit the machinery and fuel we need to support the 2nd seat.

thanks dude i just thought a twin charged design would make for a higher performecne aircraft

 

[Shortround6]

thanks dude i just thought a twin charged design would make for a higher performecne aircraft

It would, but you are limited to the technology of the time.

It is also way easier to get high power at sea level than at 20,000ft where the air is about 1/2 the density at sea level. Bring the Lancia engine up to 20,000ft and it would make 1/2 the power it did at sea level. The B-17, B-24, P-47, P-38 and others used exactly the system you propose. But like Fastmongel said you can't just stuff the system into a plane that wasn't designed for it in the first place.

 

[VA5124]

It would, but you are limited to the technology of the time.

It is also way easier to get high power at sea level than at 20,000ft where the air is about 1/2 the density at sea level. Bring the Lancia engine up to 20,000ft and it would make 1/2 the power it did at sea level. The B-17, B-24, P-47, P-38 and others used exactly the system you propose. But like Fastmongel said you can't just stuff the system into a plane that wasn't designed for it in the first place.

i understand that now you cant make decent booost at 20,000 feet plus i now understand it wont fit in the hurricane with out streching it out a bit (not related but fun fact lancia tested that enigine at 650hp )

 

[tomo pauk]

You want a fast Fulmar? Stick a Merlin X in it and fly it at 19,000ft, too bad that is not where the torpedo planes and low level bombers attacking the ships are but hey, you could have a nearly 300mph Fulmar in 1940. Then Stick Merlin XX engines in the MK II. You might get the Fulmar up to 305-310 at high altitude.

Now to get even more speed we just cut about 90 sq ft from the Fulmars wing to get rid of a lot of drag. Of course the take-off and landing speeds go up and it can no longer operate from some of the RNs shorter or slower carriers but hey, it will be faster

We'd probably want a fast 2-seat 1-engined LR naval fighter that is not a Fulmar, since fast Fulmar does not cut it. Even with these engines' upgrades.
Since a fighter does not need to carry bombs (that Fulmar was rated for), there is a lot of reserve wrt. low-speed abilities when we go down from Fulmar's wing area. This is all before someone pulls the head from the sand and conclude that high-lift devices are a thing.

D4Y with V-12 engine

Note the airbrake under the prop.

Where it is?

The D4Y didn't have any armour or self sealing tanks. I am not sure but it might not have even had a radio. Load it up to RN standards and it might not be as impressive.

(my bold)
IIRC Japanese aircraft were communicating via smoke signals; the longer-ranged the bomber, the bigger the chimney.
On a non-joke fashion, there is a lot of space in the now-vacant bomb bay for a self-sealing fuel tank.

 

[Admiral Beez]

i understand that now you cant make decent booost at 20,000 feet plus i now understand it wont fit in the hurricane with out streching it out a bit (not related but fun fact lancia tested that enigine at 650hp )

Sounds about right. So we start with the Hurricane and Henley designs. The Hawker Henley is essentially a bomber based on a Hurricane fighter (or vice versa). Remove the bomb bay and reduce the depth (or height) of the fuselage so that the bottom is flush with the wings, move the radiator to below the wings like on the Hurricane. Add folding wings and arrestor hook. With that you've essentially got a two seat Hurricane fighter.

 

[VA5124]

Sounds about right. So we start with the Hurricane and Henley designs. The Hawker Henley is essentially a bomber based on a Hurricane fighter (or vice versa). Remove the bomb bay and reduce the depth (or height) of the fuselage so that the bottom is flush with the wings, move the radiator to below the wings like on the Hurricane. Add folding wings and arrestor hook. With that you've essentially got a two seat Hurricane fighter.

View attachment 619441

View attachment 619442

the reason i picked the hurricane in the frist place is because there was a bunch of them and they countined in various to be made till wars ends i know its too small but can i ask why take out the bomb b ay

 

[fastmongrel]

i understand that now you cant make decent booost at 20,000 feet plus i now understand it wont fit in the hurricane with out streching it out a bit (not related but fun fact lancia tested that enigine at 650hp )

Lancia rally cars had an awesome exhaust noise you could hear them shrieking and crackling from several kilometres away. They were exciting to watch as well nearly always sideways and spraying gravel everywhere.

 

[VA5124]

Lancia rally cars had an awesome exhaust noise you could hear them shrieking and crackling from several kilometres away. They were exciting to watch as well nearly always sideways and spraying gravel everywhere.

but i now the twin chargeing systhem is not viable for the question at hand