Any Aircraft

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by schwarzpanzer, Mar 5, 2006.

  1. schwarzpanzer

    schwarzpanzer Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I was originally going to do a 'best plane' thread, but didn't want to conflict with the big poll-thingy, so:

    Any plane you like.

    You could have a hybrid e.g a Me262 with Derwent engines or a FW190 with a Twin Wasp.

    Raw materials and mass production aren't exempt, but neither are prototypes.

    Armament, avionics, seating, canopy - everything you'd desire!

    I hope members could critique each others planes? (In a nice way mind!)

    A mock dogfight perhaps?

    Your plane (for now) has to be a fighter.

    Also try to trump a 'part' e.g Norden Bombsight - was there any better?

    Hopefully this should bring answers?

    Thank you for participants,
     
  2. Gemhorse

    Gemhorse Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I often wonder what the Mosquito Hornet would've been like with a pair of Griffons each...........
     
  3. Dogwalker

    Dogwalker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Manziana Field, near Rome
    For 1939, an IMAM Ro-57 with the rear fuselage and the cockpit of a Re-2005, the tail of a Bugatti P100P, a slightly shortened nose to permit the installation of two three bladed Piaggio P.1001 propeller (3 m diameter), two Piaggio P.XII Rc.35 or two Alfa Romeo 135 Rc.35 radial engines rated at 1350 hp, the wingspan enlarged from 12,50 to 13 m to compensate the increased pound, a removable central 1000 kg hardpoint (useful even for an use as torpedo bomber) and three 20 mm guns in the nose.
     
  4. loomaluftwaffe

    loomaluftwaffe Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,864
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    A buggatti P100P with a pointed tip Spitfire tail with 2 20mm Hispano cannons and 2 .50s

    Engine shall be a DB605D 2,000hp
    hardpoints under outboard wing for rockets/racks and centerline hardpoint for a maximum bomb load of 250kg

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    from http://www.lionheartcreations.com[/img]
     
  5. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,771
    Likes Received:
    687
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    I often wonder what the Bf-109 would have been like had she been built in mass production with high powered radials like the BMW-801.
     
  6. loomaluftwaffe

    loomaluftwaffe Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,864
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    strange, there was a prototype of that which wasnt successful
     
  7. elmilitaro

    elmilitaro Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    College student (getting PhD)
    Location:
    Texas
    I would like to see a jet/piston powered spitfire with 4 20 MM guns and 2 .50 caliber machine guns.
     
  8. Jabberwocky

    Jabberwocky Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,090
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Teacher
    Location:
    Japan
    Reconfigure the fuel capacity of the Spitfire family. All these configurations could of actually been done. Most of them are based on short run production or field modifications to various marks.

    Mk I:

    85 gallon nose tank (same as real life)

    Mk II:

    95 gallon nose tank (larger nose tank trialed on some production planes)

    + 10 gallons on real life

    Mk V:

    95 gallon nose tank
    29 gallon rear fuselage tank (fitted as ferry tanks, would of required a small counter balance)

    +39 gallons on real life

    Mk IX/XVI:

    95 gallon nose tank (fitted to some production runs)
    65/75 gallon rear fuselage tank (fitted as standard after mid 1944)

    + 75/85 gallons on real pre 1944 production.
    Same as production after mid 1944

    Normal range was 435 miles. With 90 gallon D/T it was 980 miles. Adding a further 75/85 gall stretches range another 450 miles to around 1330 miles with a 90 gal D/T.

    Mk VII/VIII:

    95 gallon nose tank
    27 gallon wing tanks
    75 gallon rear fusealge tanks

    +75 gallons on real life

    Real life these were the longest range Spitfire. Range was 660 miles without D/T and 1,180 with a 90 gal D/T. Add +75 gallons in the form of a rear fuselsage tank and that stretches range out to around 1,500-1,600 miles, or roughly 60-70% of that of a P-51D with full external tanks.


    Mk XIV/XVIII/XXI

    95 gallon nose tank
    32 gallon wing tanks
    60 gallon rear tanks

    Some late production FR Mk XIV, and all XVIII had 175 gallons fuel, enough for 700 mile range without a drop tank or 1000 mile range with a 90 gallon D/T and 1200 miles with a 170 gallon D/T. There was more gear in the rear of the cockpit, as well as the bubbletop canopy, so the rear tanks had to be cut down in size.

    Adding another 20 gal just about compensates for the Griffons higher rate of fuel consumption.
     
  9. R988

    R988 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Office Gimp
    Location:
    Londonium
    Well judging solely on my experiences in Il2/PF I'd like to see the P-40 with a more powerful engine (turbocharged), maybe a couple of 20mm cannons as well. In fact some cannons on any US fighter would be good.

    Like to see a Yak 3, or indeed any of those lightweight Soviet fighters with some better armament as well, one cannon and one puny machine gun that is useless make life very difficult. More ammo as well :D
     
  10. cheddar cheese

    cheddar cheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    20,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    WSM, England
    A Fiat CR.42 with 4x 12.7 and 2 x 20mm, + a DB-603 engine. Mmmmmm :lol:
     
  11. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    whilst i'm thinking about my ultimate fighter i'll ask, why the hell would we put a Nordon in a fighter?
     
  12. elmilitaro

    elmilitaro Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    College student (getting PhD)
    Location:
    Texas

    Couldn't agree with you better. 8)
     
  13. MacArther

    MacArther Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Junior Historian, Paintballer, Student
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Home Page:
    P40, as stated, but the P40 Q model, with 4 20mms and an extra two .50 cals in the nose to line up the guns, or just for having more guns :D Also, giving the plane a water or whatever boost couldn't hurt, as well as large drop tanks.
     
  14. loomaluftwaffe

    loomaluftwaffe Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,864
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    the yak-3 had 2 UBs, the Yak-9D had one UB
    that was russian concept... "what i the use of heavy armament if it cant be brought to bear?" and besides, more guns means more ammo/guns lost per plane shot down... that puny UB that's useless is actually better than a .50 browning
     
  15. MacArther

    MacArther Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Junior Historian, Paintballer, Student
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Home Page:
    Ki 61 with the DB 601 or 603, whichever was more powerful (it escapes me at the moment, because I am not good with numbers). An I-16 Type 24 with a 2000hp engine! The thing was manueverable, so why not give it something to brag about it the speed department. Hurricane, give it a higher engine power, possibly with boosts. Also, ditch the 7.7mm altogether and replace it with some .50s or 20mms, or both :D . Typhoon/Tempest with the ability to carry 4000 lbs of weapons, bombs and rockets on both wings! P63, replace the 37mm General purpose gun with a 40mm S cannon, which would reek havoc on bomber streams, fighters and tanks.
     
  16. Jabberwocky

    Jabberwocky Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,090
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Teacher
    Location:
    Japan
    DB 603 was the more powerful of the pair. The Japanese had enough trouble with the DB 601, let alone the more mechnically complex DB 603. Sure, you could put one in the front of a Ki-61, but it would probably explode on the runway.

    The Hurricance always had emergency boost: +12lbs in the Mk I and +15/+16lbs in the Mk II. It aerodynamics, not engine ower that was the limiting factor for the Hurricane. Thick wings and a very draggy radiator set up. The IID got a 1460 hp engine and the IV got a 1620 hp engine.

    While the 40mm would undoubtedly be a anti tanks gun, the M4 37mm was probably better against fighters and bombers. It was 60kg lighter, had a higer RoF, similar muzzle velocity and better ammunition for aerial combat. The British never made any HE or SAPI rounds for the S class. 4 cm holes sound nasty, but the real trouble comes when a round with 50 grams of HE explodes near a fuel tank, hydraulic line or crew compartment. This is why the German 30mm shells were so effective: LOTS of HE.
     
  17. loomaluftwaffe

    loomaluftwaffe Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,864
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    torque!
     
  18. Soren

    Soren Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Looking at the wing of that imaginary Bugatti fighter, it is quite apparent that it would suffer from some quite nasty tip stalls. A pair of automatic slats would significantly offset this.
     
  19. MacArther

    MacArther Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Junior Historian, Paintballer, Student
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Home Page:
    Yes, there would be extreme torque with the I-16 typ 24, but that could be rectified with the proper trim of the airleons (spl?) and possibly adding armor or other weights (such as guns or more ammo) could also solve this problem.
     
  20. delcyros

    delcyros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    I would like to modify the Me-262 A a bit:

    At first I would like to reduce it´s weight a lot.
    First step: remove the main (4 30mm MK108) guns and their ammo (360 rounds). = 452 Kg
    Second step: replace the Jumo-004 B by BMW-003 E powerplants = ~400 Kg

    A BMW-003 not only is a lot lighter than a Jumo-004 (562 Kg vs 740 Kg dry weight), it also has the advantage of a much better reliability, lifetime (~200 hrs instead of 25-50) and it also isn´t that sensitive to throttle setting changes! The only disadvantage over the Jumo (beside of the numbers produced and general avaiability) is that you cannot easily restart the engine in flight...
    The 003E also has the advantage of a brief overrew to 115%, producing 923 Kp thrust instead of 890 in case of the Jumo-004B. The dimensions of the BMW003 are also smaller, all is going to safe weight.
    The CoG now shifts a bit forward (by 4%), this makes a partly removal of the forward armor bulkhead necessary (originally 282 Kg, now: 115 Kg, 167 Kg safed)
    Now we have already reduced the weight of the plane by one ton! But our plane still needs a decent weaponry. I originally thought of three 30 mm MK103 guns with 80 rounds each. However, Lunatic concerned the heavy recoil forces and he convinced me that this is a serious problem. So I have to reduce it two 30 mm MK103 with 80 rpg (428 Kg) and two additional high velocity 15 mm MG151 with 140 rounds each (154 Kg), all in the nose. This layout also will put the CoG back into original range. Let´s complete our modifications with an ejection seat (38 Kg). Finished.
    Our modified Me-262 AV weights 399 Kg less than the original (operational now 6.001 Kg instead of 6.400 Kg), has more thrust output (1846 Kp/4.068 lbs instead of 1780Kp/ 3.919 lbs), a better thrust to weight relation (0.31 instead of 0.28 ), a higher powerload and lower wingload. This implies a higher service ceiling, a better climb, lower take off/landing speed and a better acceleration and low speed handling. The top speed wouldn´t differ much. For brief periods (30 sec. at 115%) the modified Me-262 is faster but it would require time to accelerate. At normal poweroutput the modified Me-262 is slightly slower (my computations show 13 Km/h). The armement is a clear advantage: All high velocity, flat trajectory guns with a decent punch (and superior AP-abilities to even knock out tanks) suited for all kinds of high speed dogfights/interceptions/ground attacks. A single hit by a 30 mm MK103 has the potential to rip of the wings of any plane.
     
Loading...

Share This Page