Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'm aware of the RAF investigating fitting radar to a Hawker Typhoon to make a single seat, single engine night fighter, and some Hurricanes were converted for such a role in the CBI. But were there other known successful conversions of single seat, single engine fighters to being night/all-weather fighters? I also know of the P-51D Mustang that was converted into a two seat night/all-weather interceptor, though I have no idea how well it worked (photos of it are at IWM's site), and some trainer versions of P-38s were converted into P-38M night fighters. The conversion as far as I know worked well, but there was little for them to shoot down in 1945 when it was introduced (the P-51 night fighter conversion was also from 1945).
How would these engine swaps improve performance over what the P-70 Nighthawk used historically?For the USAAF, 1941-42: the DB-7 airframe, powered by either the V-1710, or the 2-stage R-1830 as it becomes available.
(the Havoc I was supposed to do 322 mph at 15200 ft, engine being the 1-stage supercharged R-1830 that gave 1000 HP at 12000 ft without ram effect).
How would these engine swaps would improve performance over what the P-70 Nighthawk used historically?
The British began to convert ex-French contract DB-7s with R-1830s to night fighters and night intruders in the winter of 1940/41:What it could provide is a year+- or earlier service entry - the 1st P-70 seem to be delivered in April of 1942. So it checks the 'earlier available' box.
It should also be a much more maneuverable bird, with 2000-3000 lb less weight.
I have not suggested reverting from the R-2600, I've suggested improving upon the R-1830s. The A-20/P-70 were draggier and much heavier than the earlier members of the DB-7 famility.Given a high enough priority, the P-70 could have begun entering USAAC service as early as late 1940/early 1941 (with Wright R-2600s). There was no need to revert to lower powered R-1830s. However, how would more streamlined, but lower powered, Allison V-1710s affect performance?
If there was a night fighter variant of the Bristol Blenheim, wouldn't a night fighter/night intruder version of the Martin Maryland in 1939/40 even be better?
How about a 2-seat version of the P-50 Skyrocket?
I have not suggested reverting from the R-2600, I've suggested improving upon the R-1830s. The A-20/P-70 were draggier and much heavier than the earlier members of the DB-7 famility.
The DB-7/Boston II/Havoc I as supplied to the British was powered by the R-1830, that gave 1100 HP for take off, and 1000 HP at 12500 ft, for 322 mph at 15000 ft (note the ram effect, 'worth' for 2500 ft). That is 15+ mph more than the DB-7 supplied to the French (British name for these was Boston I when they received them), their R-1830s were good for 900 HP at 12000 ft.
You could redo the entire nacelle but you still have to put the landing gear somewhere. And/or get trickier landing gear strut arrangement.The V-1710-33 was making 1040 HP at 13500 ft, while the V-1710-39 was with a better low-alt power, 1150 HP at 12000 ft. Some advantage can be gained in streamlining, some can be gained in the exhaust thrust (but probably not much, since the exhausts will go through the flame hider). I'd settle for 340 mph.
The 2-stage R-1830 might add another few mph above 15000 ft.
Cooling fans work at take-off and low speeds. If you can't cool with a 180mph airflow going through the plane a cooling fan is probably not going to help.R-2600 + turbo is also interesting for this job, provided it can be debugged and properly cooled, eg via addition of the cooling fan.
Installation of the non-turbo 1700 HP R-2600s is another possibility - just don't wait until 1944.
Not sure what the Maryland brings to the table. Good idea for a "quickie" but by the time you change much you can have the R-2600 powered A-20s that are over 30mph faster.Both ideas have merit.
Even the as-is Maryland flown by Adrian Warburton managed to score a lot of kills against the Axis aircraft. Install the better engines, radar as available, some extra guns and there it is?
P-50 should be easier to became a 2-seater than it was the case with P-38 - being a 'classic' twin has it's merits. Visibility is/was great, tricycle U/C also helps, and can be a performer even on ... every-day's engines.
Faster Fulmar NF so long as you are using metric AI.IV type radars.Good bases for the British NFs:
- Fairey Firefly, land based
Think range/endurance. Most night fighters were operated on the "standing patrol" model. Or modified "standing Patrol" The early Blenheims and the Beaufighters often did patrols of 3-5 hours? P-61 was big as it was because the specifications called for 8 hours patrol time if I remember.The alternative NFs should be able to be either more capable than the historical aircraft used (factors being speed, maneuverability, weaponry, electronics etc.), and/or more easily available, or earlier available. The suitability for night fighting in terms of good low-speed handling, overall handling is obviously still required. Radars and other allectronics - as these can be plausibly available to a country in question. Granted, even a radar-less night fighter will work, as demonstrated by Luftwaffe and RAF.
Unless it was the RAF itself decided their Blenheims weren't cutting it, and until they could field enough Beaufighter night fighters, those intended for the FAA took a lower priority.Martin Marylands were busily in demand by the RAF for bombing and long range reconnaissance in the Mediterranean and all were the subject of a direct British contract so it will be handbags at dawn if one took them away for use as night fighters.
HiAnother few types:
- Westland gets the Welkin right, so it makes sense to do a 2-seater from it
- Whirlwind is not that tight a design...
Does my sentence end there?There were no alternatives, even theoretical which would meet your criteria of The alternative NFs should be able to be either more capable than the historical aircraft used