If that would be possible, but I just dont see the need for a dive bombing mossie. She did just fine how she was concieved. Just my opinion again.
Aircraft Modifications
- Thread starter The Jug Rules!
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Glider
Captain
I think I am right in aying that one was modified as a dive bomber but the ad a problem with the dive brakes as they had to be quite large and ruined its performance. Its a very slippery aircraft, gained speed quickly and was hard to low down.
This is I admit totally from memory but I recall a photo of one and the airbrakes were all around the fusalage like an umbrella.
On bomber was also fitted with a gun turret but it also lost a lot of speed and range due to the drag.
This is I admit totally from memory but I recall a photo of one and the airbrakes were all around the fusalage like an umbrella.
On bomber was also fitted with a gun turret but it also lost a lot of speed and range due to the drag.
Glider
Captain
Have dug a bit more and it seems to have been a Youngman circular segmented air brake.
Sgt. Pappy
Airman 1st Class
- 197
- Jun 7, 2006
glider! i see ur okay and kicking! lol i remember u once said u were ill.. good to see u back!
anywho if i had to modify anything, i would have given the 109 slightly larger wing area - maybe 10% more. it turned pretty well and giving it more wing area would probably allow it to turn tighter.
i would also have that 33 Imp. Gal. tank and the 41 imp. gal. tank installed in the rear way earlier than 1945 in the back of spitfire IX's, XVI'x and XIV's. Anyone know how heavy one of those self-sealing 33/41 imp. gal. tanks are when empty? b/c if it was too heavy it would probably have affected maneuevrability.
anywho if i had to modify anything, i would have given the 109 slightly larger wing area - maybe 10% more. it turned pretty well and giving it more wing area would probably allow it to turn tighter.
i would also have that 33 Imp. Gal. tank and the 41 imp. gal. tank installed in the rear way earlier than 1945 in the back of spitfire IX's, XVI'x and XIV's. Anyone know how heavy one of those self-sealing 33/41 imp. gal. tanks are when empty? b/c if it was too heavy it would probably have affected maneuevrability.
If you whas a pilot of a "Mossie" and making a havoc on the german train, truck, tanks, briges and other small target, dosent it annoying you that there a great possible that you can miss the target, then whouldent you have something that help you redusing the possible of missing the target, speciallity when the target is protected whit flak and you dont whanna do another bombrun if you missed it. The more "mossie" hit the target whit more precision the less cost of planes, bombs and pilots it gonna be and the war gonna be shorter. Some of you who read this and playing some sort of combat flight simulator and doing fighterbombning, dont you often going in to the target in a like 30-40 degree dive more or less? dosent that tell you that the pilot of the "Mossie" must have done in a some sort of a low-degree divebombning whit it to? Like you doing in the same way in your simulator. Its is a perfect situation for using the M42/b bombsight for the "Mossie". the argument of not using the M42/B bombsight is like if I had a old WW1 gunsite on my WW2 fighterplane and someone says there no need for an replacement for the gunsight. well I whant a new one so I can be sure to hit the enemy fighterplane more often when i have it in my sight, otherwise he might gonna shoot me down if i miss him.
HaWk3r T3mP3sT
Banned
Oh Guys (and ladies) i love the ideas you,ve come up with, but personally i believe mines the best.
I called it the Hawker Tempest mk7 its a standard Tempest mk6 but with another need for all u guys, a beer fridge!
What ya think?
I called it the Hawker Tempest mk7 its a standard Tempest mk6 but with another need for all u guys, a beer fridge!
What ya think?
Desert Fox
Senior Airman
I would choose the P-47, but with a larger airframe...its just a little too small
Perhaps the Westland Whirlwind, but with Rolls Royce Merlin Engines, instead of those pesky Peregrine engines. I would have loved to have seen it in mass production...a rival for the Beaufighter perhaps?
Perhaps the Westland Whirlwind, but with Rolls Royce Merlin Engines, instead of those pesky Peregrine engines. I would have loved to have seen it in mass production...a rival for the Beaufighter perhaps?
24 hours from the bottle to the throttle...
Yep...
Procrastintor
Senior Airman
I know this is an old thread but I'm bringin' it back. I'd grab a P-40E and put a Merlin engine in, and put two more .50's in the nose like the P-40C. I'd also make a tank buster variant like the Stuka and but a 37mm under the fuselage
Don't forget the interrupter gear lest that li'l ol' 37mm accidentally shoots off the li'l ol' propeller...
Shortround6
Major General
P-40Fs and Ls already had Merlins.
Difference between a P-40C and a P-40E or F was a change in reduction gear that raised the propeller 6 inches making fitting the cowl .50s a tight squeeze. The Later P-40s also used the space from the guns and ammo to move the oil tank to. The >50 cal did NOT take well to synchronizing with many installations firing at less than 500rpm compared to the 800rpm for the wing guns.
Blowing your own prop off is not going to impress the enemy tankers. NOBODY got a gun over 23mm into service in a synchronized installation. Some gun mechanisms are impossible to synchronize and other mechanisms, while suitable from mechanical stand point, fall down with large caliber shells. The large shells have a more variable burn time from primer initiation to shell exiting the muzzle.
The P-40C had 9 prop blades pass in front of the cowl .50s for each time the guns fired (if they made 500rpm). You don't have a lot of time to fool around with for variations in charge burn. Nicking your prop with .50 is one thing, hitting it with a 37mm is another.
Difference between a P-40C and a P-40E or F was a change in reduction gear that raised the propeller 6 inches making fitting the cowl .50s a tight squeeze. The Later P-40s also used the space from the guns and ammo to move the oil tank to. The >50 cal did NOT take well to synchronizing with many installations firing at less than 500rpm compared to the 800rpm for the wing guns.
Blowing your own prop off is not going to impress the enemy tankers. NOBODY got a gun over 23mm into service in a synchronized installation. Some gun mechanisms are impossible to synchronize and other mechanisms, while suitable from mechanical stand point, fall down with large caliber shells. The large shells have a more variable burn time from primer initiation to shell exiting the muzzle.
The P-40C had 9 prop blades pass in front of the cowl .50s for each time the guns fired (if they made 500rpm). You don't have a lot of time to fool around with for variations in charge burn. Nicking your prop with .50 is one thing, hitting it with a 37mm is another.
wuzak
Captain
Wasn't the 37mm considered a poor air to air weapon?
And had a low muzzle velocity?
So, if you could synchronise it, the low muzzle velocity and the size of the round would make the timing interesting.
And had a low muzzle velocity?
So, if you could synchronise it, the low muzzle velocity and the size of the round would make the timing interesting.
Procrastintor
Senior Airman
Well wouldn't two more .50s be useful even at a slower RPM? And as for the 37mm, would it be better in underwing pods like un the JU-87?
I believe the P-40D experimented with 2x 20mm Hispano-Suiza in gun pods slung under the wings. IIRC, it was a failure.
The E,F,K,L,M,&N versions retained the mounted point under the skin however.
@ Procrastintor, interesting the drop tank on your signature P-40N is backwards. IF they really did that, the blunted end
facing backwards would create an area of low pressure, and create more drag.
The E,F,K,L,M,&N versions retained the mounted point under the skin however.
@ Procrastintor, interesting the drop tank on your signature P-40N is backwards. IF they really did that, the blunted end
facing backwards would create an area of low pressure, and create more drag.
Procrastintor
Senior Airman
I know they did the drop tank thing on real ones in Burma, don't know why though. And thanks for the info on the P-40D, I never knew they tried that.
Shortround6
Major General
The P-40E and later versions were already carrying too much armament for the engines, adding cowl guns just makes it worse. You can lug all the guns you want but if you can't put them on target they are useless.
A P-40C was carrying 230 KG of guns and ammo but not including gun mounts, ammo boxes/chutes, gun heaters, solenoids, etc. A P-40E went to 332KG of guns and ammo without "accessories" with very little increase in power.
Sticking a pair of .50s in the cowl with just 200rpg is going to add 112kg without the "accessories".
Attempts to improve combat performance of the P-40 included pulling a .50 cal from each wing and limiting the remaining guns to 201 rounds apiece, pulling the electric starter and using a smaller battery, taking out one fuel tank, Using magnesium wheels and aluminium radiator and oil cooler cores.
The P-40 was under powered/over weight for most of it's career. Stuffing in more guns just makes it worse.
You better have good fighters flying escort for you if you try and use this for ground attack.
Procrastintor
Senior Airman
I see, I never thought about that, thanks!
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
I like the idea, but you might need that position on a plane that big to help drop the torpedo's. Also, I don't know if structural integrity could support such a gun at the front, but more knowledgeable people would have to comment on that.
