Could you have designed a better Warbird?

[Burmese Bandit]

Dang I did it...but it's way too big...how do I shrink it???

 

[AMCKen]

My "vote" would be for a P-38 with Merlin engines. The only true weakness of the P-38 was the Allison V-1710 engines; great at low levels (<25,000'), not so great at altitude. I think the P-38 would've been a world-beater with Merlins installed, instead of V-1710's.

Nah! A de Havilland Hornet with Griffons. : )

 

[Venganza]

Dang I did it...but it's way too big...how do I shrink it???

How's this?

 

[Burmese Bandit]

And here are two piccies -

 

[Burmese Bandit]

The top one is the Fokker 13 project.

The Lower one is the Jona J-10 project, which I got from Red Admiral's re-drawing of it.

 

[Soren]

What nonsense. It was full steam ahead from 1938/39 with the Air Ministry desparately throwing more and more money at projects and being frustrated when results didn't happen. Its extremely unlikely the 004 project could be sped up any more compared to OTL given all the problems it faced, let alone have a improved reheated version in service as well at the same time.

Complete and utter rubbish by red admiral once more.

The Jet programme was delayed several times red admiral, read your history man!

If we are to imagine 004E equipped Me 262 in mid 1944 why not also imagine F-84s and F-86s as well. Its about as reasonable.

You're such a joke!

I suggest you cut your losses now and don't come back before you've gotten atleast some sense of reality.

F-86's, omg

 

[Clay_Allison]

Dang I did it...but it's way too big...how do I shrink it???

I LOVE this design based on my concept. Excellent work, you even put in the wider landing gear that fixes my only issue with the 109.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Er, clay, just in case you got the wrong idea...

that isn't my drawing. It's a drawing of the Finnish 109 based design, a plane which was built as a prototype and a few production examples in 1944-45.

I dont want to be accused of plagiarism!

 

[red admiral]

As before;

The Development of the Junkers Jumo 004B—The World's First Production Turbojet by C. B. Meher-Homji

does not agree with the nonsense you're posting.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Er, clay, just in case you got the wrong idea...

that isn't my drawing. It's a drawing of the Finnish 109 based design, a plane which was built as a prototype and a few production examples in 1944-45.

I dont want to be accused of plagiarism!

Well, I thought you drew it. I knew about the Finnish 1944-45 design, but I didn't know that was it. Props for finding it anyway.

 

[Vraciu]

I was able only to make some photos of my drawing:

 

[gjs238]

PART I: High altitude
A real P-39.

Turning the clock back to United States Army Air Corps Circular Proposal X-609 issued in February 1937, the Bell entry could have been a far superior machine than the P-39 ended up to be and would have better equipped the Allies in the critical early years of WWII.

With existing technology, the plane could have started the war with a better wing, greater fuel capacity (providing endurance equal to or greater than the P-40), the General Electric turbocharger, gun exhaust flash suppressors, improved compass, and proper sealing/venting of nose armament fumes. Armament would be the 20m Hispano-Suiza cannon instead of the 37 mm Oldsmobile T9 and two Browning M2 .50" machine guns in the nose. Two M2's in underwing gondolas could be optional, added/removed in the field as desired.

While the mid-engine arrangement permits heavy nose armament and a smooth streamlined nose profile, it also allows a simple turbocharger installation not requiring extensive ductwork like the P-47.

The USAAC decision to emasculate this interceptor was a serious error. Some sources say this was done due to a change in philosophy to ground attack/close support. For that, an unsupercharged, air cooled engine powered plane would have excelled - please read below.

PART II: Low altitude ground attack/close support
Two competing entries:

From Seversky/Republic:
A P-35 developed to accept a Pratt Whitney R-2800.
In other words, a P-43 Lancer with R-2800 sans turbocharger.
Or a slimmed-down P-47 with R-2800 sans turbocharger if the R-2800 was not available in time for the above.
(Please note that I'm not suggesting a modification of the P-43 or P-47, but a different evolution of the P-35 that would have led to a different P-43 or P-47.)

From Curtiss:
A P-36 Hawk developed to accept a Pratt Whitney R-2800.
In other words, a P-40 with R-2800.
(Please note that I'm not suggesting a modification of the P-40, but a different evolution of the P-36 that would have led to a different P-40.)

These planes would be well armed with a generous fuel supply for long range loiter time.

The development of these planes would have provided a more cost-effective, lighter, perhaps greater performance aircraft than the F4U Corsair (which I think was the only other plane being developed at so early a date around the R-2800) but whose development dragged on for some time.

 

[Clay_Allison]

PART I: High altitude
A real P-39.

Turning the clock back to United States Army Air Corps Circular Proposal X-609 issued in February 1937, the Bell entry could have been a far superior machine than the P-39 ended up to be and would have better equipped the Allies in the critical early years of WWII.

With existing technology, the plane could have started the war with a better wing, greater fuel capacity (providing endurance equal to or greater than the P-40), the General Electric turbocharger, gun exhaust flash suppressors, improved compass, and proper sealing/venting of nose armament fumes. Armament would be the 20m Hispano-Suiza cannon instead of the 37 mm Oldsmobile T9 and two Browning M2 .50" machine guns in the nose. Two M2's in underwing gondolas could be optional, added/removed in the field as desired.

While the mid-engine arrangement permits heavy nose armament and a smooth streamlined nose profile, it also allows a simple turbocharger installation not requiring extensive ductwork like the P-47.

The USAAC decision to emasculate this interceptor was a serious error. Some sources say this was done due to a change in philosophy to ground attack/close support. For that, an unsupercharged, air cooled engine powered plane would have excelled - please read below.

PART II: Low altitude ground attack/close support
Two competing entries:

From Seversky/Republic:
A P-35 developed to accept a Pratt Whitney R-2800.
In other words, a P-43 Lancer with R-2800 sans turbocharger.
Or a slimmed-down P-47 with R-2800 sans turbocharger if the R-2800 was not available in time for the above.
(Please note that I'm not suggesting a modification of the P-43 or P-47, but a different evolution of the P-35 that would have led to a different P-43 or P-47.)

From Curtiss:
A P-36 Hawk developed to accept a Pratt Whitney R-2800.
In other words, a P-40 with R-2800.
(Please note that I'm not suggesting a modification of the P-40, but a different evolution of the P-36 that would have led to a different P-40.)

These planes would be well armed with a generous fuel supply for long range loiter time.

The development of these planes would have provided a more cost-effective, lighter, perhaps greater performance aircraft than the F4U Corsair (which I think was the only other plane being developed at so early a date around the R-2800) but whose development dragged on for some time.

I'd be interested in a two-stage-three-speed supercharged P-47. That would have really brought down the cost per unit.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Reviving this thread...

I have been reading one of my favourite authors - the British writer of fiction, and also historian of WW II LEN DEIGHTON...and I was struck by has statement that the Hurricane was probably the most underrated aircraft of WWII.

It could be produced in half the time of the Spitfire, was only 10% slower with the same engine, copuld be repaired much faster and easier, was MUCH forgiving of bad and panicky flying by inexperienced rookie pilots, it was a better and steadier gun platform than the Spitfire. And it was a better landing aircraft too. Probably over the course of the war Spitfires killed many, many more pilots than the Hurricane through landing accidents and high speed stalls than the Hurricane.

And it seems to me that the Hurricane's blunt and large nose airframe would lend itself to excellent adaptation for a radial.

So here is my suggestion.

In 1937 the Hawker company decides at the last minute to produce the Hurricane with a radial rather than the Rolls Royce inline. Since Bristol doesn't have an engine in that class yet, the Pratt and Whitney Double Wasp is chosen. Hurricane debuts at about 1,000 horsepower. Experiments with engine driven fans and close cowling are made.

By 1940 the Hurricane has matured into a 1,200 hp close cowled engine fan cooled airplane with 12 browning .303 machine guns in its wings. A teardrop bubble canopy has been fitted, it being discovered that this (due to the Hurricane's original shape) is not reducing the speed at all.

I suspect the comparitive stats against the 1030 hp merlin engined spitfires of 1940 would be

Level Speed: The Hurricane is 25-30 mph slower.
Climb: The Hurricane's climb is at least equal to superior to the 1940 Spit, since the Hurricane's heavier weight is offset by 170 more hp and an longer span wing.
Turn: the Hurricane is again about equal. Its heavier weight is counterbalanced by its larger wing area.
Dive: The Spit is faster initially, but in a prolonged dive the Hurricane overtakes the spit.
Battle damage tolerance: The Hurricane is clearly superior.
Quick Repair on Ground: Ditto.
Engine Reliability: Ditto.
Takeoff/Landings in bad weather: Ditto.
Gunpower: The Hurricane is tremendously superior.
Suitability for the green rookie pilot, hurriedly rushed to the squardrons due to the tremendlous pilot losses in the Battle of Britain: Again the Hurricane wins hands down.

What do you guys think?

 

[Venganza]

I have been reading one of my favourite authors - the British writer of fiction, and also historian of WW II LEN DEIGHTON...and I was struck by has statement that the Hurricane was probably the most underrated aircraft of WWII.

It could be produced in half the time of the Spitfire, was only 10% slower with the same engine, copuld be repaired much faster and easier, was MUCH forgiving of bad and panicky flying by inexperienced rookie pilots, it was a better and steadier gun platform than the Spitfire. And it was a better landing aircraft too. Probably over the course of the war Spitfires killed many, many more pilots than the Hurricane through landing accidents and high speed stalls than the Hurricane.

That's interesting. The Hurricane has never been a favorite of mine. I've always considered the Hurricane to be one of the most overrated aircraft of the war. With that huge, thick wing it was never going to go that fast, no matter how much horsepower you put into it. True, the Typhoon was 400mph+ with a thick wing, but that was with that monster Sabre engine, and its wing, although thick, wasn't as thick as that block the Hurricane called a wing. The problem with the Hurricane is with that wing and that 1920's technology fuselage (steel-tube frame, with wooden formers and stringers covered in fabric), it didn't have the design stretch of the Spitfire or the Bf-109, which were among the first advanced monoplane fighters, yet remained competitive against much later piston-engined fighters because of continuous improvement. True, you could have put more power into the Hurricane, made the wing thinner, and made the rear fuselage an all-metal monococque, but by then you'd have a Typhoon, not a Hurricane. Even the Soviets, in 1941-42, while terribly desparate for fighters, didn't particularly like the Hurricane, and it was replaced in frontline units (as opposed to PVO local interceptor units) as quickly as possible. Its forgiving qualities, good takeoff and landing characteristics, and steadiness as a gun platform didn't account for much when it was so quickly blasted out of the air by superior German fighters. These characteristics are fine for a training aircraft, but not so useful for an air-to-air fighter if they're not combined with manueverability and speed, two areas where the Hurricane was lacking in comparison to the Spitfire and the Bf-109 and Fw-190.

Venganza

 

[tomo pauk]

Now the Hurricane is un-maneuvreable!? Yeah, right

The Hurricane could've used 2 British radials too, Taurus Hercules. Turning the plane to a better ground attack and/or CV machine. The speed gain would've been negligible though.

 

[Stitch]

Very simply, I would've designed the P-38, only fitted it with Rolls-Royce engines, either Merlins or Griffons. THE major weak spot on the P-38, as most people will agree, were it's Allison V-1710's; good engines for their time, but not GREAT engines. Put a couple of Merlins in a P-38, and you have a world-beater (kind of like a Mosquito, only more maneuverable). Later in life, you probably could've shoe-horned a couple of 2,000 HP Griffons into the P-38 airframe.

 

[Soren]

Again, if I was the head of the LW I would've done everything in my power to get the Jumo 004E in production as quick as possible and install it on the Me-262 as that alone could've decided the war in Europe. With a speed of 900 + km/h and the range to reach England and back the Allies could kiss their bomber offensive goodbye.

Fortunately that didn't happen however.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Regarding the thick wing of the Hurricane - that would be a problem ONLY as speeds went over the 350 mark and crept up towards 400. At the much lower speeds at which the Battle of Britain was fought, the thick wing was of fairly negligible importance.

Remember, I am talking about the Battle of Britain scenario, where there most pressing need was not for small numbers of high speed aircraft, but large numbers of passable aircraft built as quickly as possible and being repaired rapidly...and capable of being flown by the thousands of new pilots being hurriedly commissioned.

And let's not forget that many of the German aircraft, both bombers and fighters, attacked by Spits in 1940 lived to limp home to Occupied France to fight another day...because of the inadequate armament of eight rifle calibre machine guns. While the best solution was the 20 mm cannon, there just weren't enough of them in 1940 and they had reliability and ammunition supply problems as well.

So the 12 browning solution was the best available at the time. And the Spit couldn't carry 12 brownings.

The radial Hurricane would have been the perfect solution in 1940, and as the war went on and it was slowly replaced by (say) Tempests, it could have had a great secondary career as an advanced trainer and a ground attack aircraft!

 

[Burmese Bandit]

And one final statistic...


Which Non-Russian aircraft type killed the most Axis aircraft 1939-45? Three guesses.