Could you have designed a better Warbird?

[Clay_Allison]

Sounds cool, Clay. Should go like a bat out of Hell. Always thought the Arsenal VG-33 was a great-looking plane.

Venganza

It wouldn't be armored but I know those Finns were daredevils. Give them a light, fast agile plane and they'd probably take to it like a polar bear to ice.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

The very first problems you will encounter are:

glue...and woodworkers.

The reason why the germans, with all their technology, could not build a german 'Moskito' were those. Germany simply did not have enough woodworkers with the necessary skills to build plywood - balsa aircraft. And there was only one supplier of the necessary glue, called 'Tego-film' which was good enough to use in aircraft.

I suggest you do research as to whether there were sufficient woodworkers with the skill level necessary in Finland at that time. If there were, then your project is plausible. If not, it dies at birth!

If that plane comes out in 1942 or earlier the glue problem will not exist since the 'Tego-film' factory was destroyed by bombing only in 1943. However I suggest that you build a shadow factory or three just in case, too!

 

[Venganza]

The very first problems you will encounter are:

glue...and woodworkers.

With Finland being something like 90% forest, I have to believe that they would have had plenty of skilled woodworkers that could be trained to build airplanes. In terms of the glue - they had captured Soviet planes that were wooden or had wooden parts (I-153, I-16, LaGG-3, etc.). Even without the German glue plant, perhaps the Finns could have reverse-engineered how the Soviets used glue on their wooden parts? Of course that still leaves the problem of making the glue, even if they figure out how to.

Venganza

 

[Clay_Allison]

Very interesting point. The idea is supposed to debut in 1942 to have enough fighters available for the continuation war. I'll have to assume for the sake of the intellectual exercise that they acquired the gluemaking secrets from germany in '42 and set up their own factories in Finland

Like Venganza said, finland being heavily forested and home craftsmen being more the rule than the exception, I believe the woodworkers would be there. In fact, the Finns came up with a late war program, trying to make a Bf 109 clone out of wood that was promising but too late.

Conceived to make maximum use of indigenous materials with emphasis on suitability for operation from small Finnish front-line airfields under the most severe climatic conditions, the Pybrremyrsky (Whirlwind) was designed by Dipl-Ing Torsti R Verkkola. Powered by a 12-cylinder inverted-Vee Daimler-Benz DB 605AC engine rated at 1475hp, the Pyorremyrsky had a single-spar wooden wing with plywood skinning and a fuselage of steel-tube construction with detachable metal panels forward and a wooden ply-covered mono-coque aft. Armament comprised one engine-mounted 20mm MG 151 cannon and two 12.7mm LKK/42 machine guns, provision being made for two 200kg bombs underwing. Prototype construction was slowed by the preoccupation of the VL with higher priority programmes, and work on the Pyorremyrsky, which had languished for several months, came to a halt with the Finnish-Soviet Armistice of 4 September 1944. Somewhat surprisingly, construction of the fighter was resumed later, in January 1945. A DB 605AC engine was removed from a Bf 109G and installed in the prototype, which flew for the first time on 21 November 1945. The Pyorremyrsky could outclimb the Bf 109G-6 and was more manoeuvrable, but, as no funds were available for the purchase of new aircraft for Ilmavoimat and sufficient Bf 109Gs remained to equip the Ilmavoimien fighter force that was permitted under the Armistice terms.

 

[Jabberwocky]

...the air ministry wanted 20 mm turrets in its heavy bombers even before the war, but cost, (non)availability of 20 mm cannon, and weight at the end of the tail considerations kept 20 mm being put into tail turrets till the end of the war. Even the Germans couldn't achieve that. Only the americans did that with a single 20 mm in the tail in the B-29 and it took a 124,000 lb design to take it.

Not true.

The Germans had a 20 mm in the front of a He-111 by 1941, used for straffing. They also mounted up to 10 MG 151/20s in Me 323s!

The RAF had a 2 x 20 mm turret flying in a Lancaster test bed by early 1944, but decided that it was simpler to retain the .303 armament, as the war was expected to be over within 6-8 months! The RAF preferred deterrence over destruction when it came to defending its bombers.

The Lincoln prototypes also flew with similar 2 x 20 mm turrets.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Jabberwocky,

I said turrets. The germans did indeed experiment with 20 mm turrets. But the cannon they had in their production machines were handheld.

The turret in the Lancaster was cancelled also mainly because of weight problems.

Only in the bigger Lincoln were 20 mm turrets feasible. As a general rule of thumb, any plane smaller than 60,000 lbs cannot have twin gun 20 mm turrets unless some major compromises in either bombload, fuel, speed, or ammunition for guns carried are made. Only when we start getting to the 75000 lb and above stage does 20 mm become feasible...

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Clay: Armament.

I have always wanted to try this out on a regular 109, but your plywood powerhouse would do just as well!

We'll assume that your aircraft will be based closely on the 109.

Remove the oil cooler under the nose, and split it into two smaller oil coolers. Put one each with the radiators under the wings.

Now we have a clean underbelly. Put two MG 131s or equivalents under the belly in a smooth conformal pack. Keep the two MG 131s or equivalents on top.

On the engine mount the Jackhammer, the 30mm MG 108.

Result: for medium range high volume of fire, 4 MG 131 x 800 + rpm = 3200/3300 rpm.

And for short range explosive kill, the Mg 108.

The 131 is for the Yaks, the 108 is for the Stormoviks. Both found in high numbers on the front.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Oh, yes, and Clay...think about whether having automatic wing leading edge slats are more trouble than they are worth, especially for a country with a low (for that time) industrial base. I think we should try for maximum simplicity...

 

[Clay_Allison]

Oh, yes, and Clay...think about whether having automatic wing leading edge slats are more trouble than they are worth, especially for a country with a low (for that time) industrial base. I think we should try for maximum simplicity...

Well, my idea was not to have a clone of the 109, read up and you'll see it was the VG-33 I was looking at. Wooden, maximum streamlining, maximum ease of production, could be trimmed dorn to 2000 Kg.

I've been reading about the production issues with the DB 601, and how hard it was to get. I'm thinking it should be replaced in my scenario by the Allison, also.

God knows there's no way I could get Merlins.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Well...I think your best scenario would then be to build a plane that was so superior that even the Germans would want to buy and license it, and then all the problems would be solved at a single stroke.

Here are my thoughts.

Building a highly streamlined, light, fast, and easy to produce plane, you will have to have some sacrifices. The first will be armament.

I suggest no cannon, only four MG 131 firing through the hub. How? Take two 131, bolt them together barrel to barrel. Now stagger two more 131 behind them and bolt them together dittp The Vee of the 601 can take a maximum 70 mm diameter. The four 131 should just about fit.

Result: you have a centerline installation and no propeller interruption penalty. 3600 rpm. All for a total gun weight of only 68 kg. The bullets are not too powerful, but should be good enough for the light Yaks. Stormoviks would be a bit of a problem though.

Have an annular cowl, like the FW 190 D. Easier to engineer. Same total drag as wing radiators but much easier to fit and service.

Have your vertical tail in front of the horizontal tail, like the Corsair. This will make your plane more maneuverable at high angles of attack, such as climbing turns.

BTW I read about your template plane and it weighed over 3300 kg take off weight. That's about the same as a 109 Frederich.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Only in the bigger Lincoln were 20 mm turrets feasible. As a general rule of thumb, any plane smaller than 60,000 lbs cannot have twin gun 20 mm turrets unless some major compromises in either bombload, fuel, speed, or ammunition for guns carried are made. Only when we start getting to the 75000 lb and above stage does 20 mm become feasible...

Oh, so now its twin 20mm turrets? Well, even the B-29 doesn't cut it in that respect

As for 20 mm turrets in aircraft less than 75,000 lbs, you can find plenty of examples if you look harder at some lesser known types, particularly seaplanes.

The Japanese fitted a single Type 99 20 mm cannon were fitted to the H6K (tail turret), H8K (tail, dorsal, nose turrets).

The Germans also put 20 mm turrets on some He 177 variants, the Bv 138 (nose and stern turrets), the Do 18 and Do 24 (both with powered dorsal turret), Do 26 (bow turret) and some Fw 200 variants (foward powered dorsal turret).

The Italians were also going to fit a remotely fired stinger type 20mm to their P.108 successor, the P.133, but were invaded before the prototype could fly.

Over the 75,000 lbs limit, the Germans had the BV 222 with three powered 20 mm turrets (in a 110,000 lbs aircraft) and the aforementioned Me 323. The Russians also fitted two single 20 mm turrets to the Pe-8, in 1936.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

A point of ammo, Jabberwocky. I remarked that (perhaps it's my fault - I didn't make myself clear) compromises in "...either bombload, fuel, speed, or ammunition for guns carried are made..."

Just how many rounds - or, a better standard of measurement, how many seconds of fire - did those 20 mm turrets you speak of, have?

 

[fly boy]

Wanna try?

as in i would take parts of each plane like the mustang engine and the p-47s chances of liveing ( very high) and armorment package of the 109 and 190 and then make it all look great like the spitfire

 

[Clay_Allison]

Well...I think your best scenario would then be to build a plane that was so superior that even the Germans would want to buy and license it, and then all the problems would be solved at a single stroke.

Here are my thoughts.

Building a highly streamlined, light, fast, and easy to produce plane, you will have to have some sacrifices. The first will be armament.

I suggest no cannon, only four MG 131 firing through the hub. How? Take two 131, bolt them together barrel to barrel. Now stagger two more 131 behind them and bolt them together dittp The Vee of the 601 can take a maximum 70 mm diameter. The four 131 should just about fit.

Result: you have a centerline installation and no propeller interruption penalty. 3600 rpm. All for a total gun weight of only 68 kg. The bullets are not too powerful, but should be good enough for the light Yaks. Stormoviks would be a bit of a problem though.

Have an annular cowl, like the FW 190 D. Easier to engineer. Same total drag as wing radiators but much easier to fit and service.

Have your vertical tail in front of the horizontal tail, like the Corsair. This will make your plane more maneuverable at high angles of attack, such as climbing turns.

BTW I read about your template plane and it weighed over 3300 kg take off weight. That's about the same as a 109 Frederich.

Ok, this is awesome because I've been thinking about this all day. Armament and pilot protection would have to be heavily reduced. Extra features would have to be dropped, like wing slats etc.

I think I would have retractable landing gear, but they would be hand-cranked to save weight and complexity.

My armament plan would be 2x 20mm cannons, tightly wing mounted with 300 rounds each. Pilots would hunt in pairs like Germans and be taught to hold their fire until they were in close range. If the next target procedes smoothly from the first, keep going. If not, disengage and give them no chance to avenge their dead. More often than not, tight Soviet formations will give a pair of hunters a chance for multiple kills.

20mm cannons give great bang-for-buck in terms of weight, and a close range attack from above on an Il-2 would still crush the airframe.

 

[109ROAMING]

as in i would take parts of each plane like the mustang engine and the p-47s chances of liveing ( very high) and armorment package of the 109 and 190 and then make it all look great like the spitfire

Just like in a computer game?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

as in i would take parts of each plane like the mustang engine and the p-47s chances of liveing ( very high) and armorment package of the 109 and 190 and then make it all look great like the spitfire

Good luck, your plane will never get off the ground. If it does, it will weigh a few tons and fly like a bus.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Dang it...please, to some posters, who shall remain nameless, please listen..

This is supposed to be a serious thread, and a serious attempt to design planes. Even if those planes never get past the paper stage, we are attempting to be serious here.

Now some posters - I don't quite know if they are attempting to be humourous or not - but some posters seem to think that designing airplanes is as easy as cutting and pasting pieces of text from here and there into a word document and publishing it as original work.

Herewith a very, very brief designing 101.

When designing a Warplane, we must think of its role first. What is it expected to do? Chase after enemy planes and shoot them down, and if the enemy planes themselves are attempting to shoot it down, to maneuver violently to escape them?

This is the description of the type of plane known as the fighter plane. High speed and maneuverability, and an armament powerful and accurate enough to shoot down your expected opponent, are a must. There are many, many other considerations, but these are at the top of the list.

Or do we want a plane that can carry a load of bombs a certain distance, drop them accurately enough to be worth carrying that distance, strong and fast and defensively well armed enough to have a credible chance of dropping those bombs, and also of getting back to base more or less in one piece?

This is the description of the type of plane known as the bomber. High bomb carrying capacity, accurate bombing ability, and long range are at the top of the to-do design list here.

To be continued...

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Now when you design an airplane, the very first thing you start with is the powerplant. Every other decision you make on the design starts from that.

This thread has the premise that everything be credible in time, space and money, which means that the powerplant should credibly be in operation during the time which you plan the plane to be built.

For the mission you need to take into account where you will put your equipment. Where will you put the engine? In front in the nose, or in front of the wings, or embedded in the wings? Why? And what of the engine acessories? Radiators, if necessary, oil coolers, always necessary, superchargers or turbochargers, fuel and oil tanks? Bombs, bomb racks, guns? Ammunition tanks? Will you have armour around them, and if so, how much?

Once you have decided on that the age old problem of aircraft design, weight, comes into play. All of the above (and a lot more we haven't included!) is dead weight - this means that it's not contributing anything to the airplane's strength. You need structures like the airplane fuselage and Wing spars to give strength to the plane, and don't forget these have weight, too. They have to carry themselves and the weight of the rest of the plane as well.

And how will we balance this weight so that the aircraft is neither too nose nor tail heavy? We have to think of that.

And, of course, wing design - what type of airfoil design we will use - is an art in itself.

All this shows that aircraft design, even a paper aircraft, is a very, very complex design indeed, which is why most paper aircraft designers take a proven aircraft as a template and make a few changes here and there. Wildly mixing and matching aircraft any old how - like, say, saying you're going to mate the wings of the spitfire with the body of a mustang and then add the leading edge slats of the 109 - is just a pipe dream.

I took a very deeeeep breath when designing the BB 129 because it was unlike any template that had been seen before. But I have put a lot of deep thought into it, and I think that design will fly....when I finish X-planing it someday i will post the file here.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Now when you design an airplane, the very first thing you start with is the powerplant. Every other decision you make on the design starts from that.

This thread has the premise that everything be credible in time, space and money, which means that the powerplant should credibly be in operation during the time which you plan the plane to be built.

For the mission you need to take into account where you will put your equipment. Where will you put the engine? In front in the nose, or in front of the wings, or embedded in the wings? Why? And what of the engine acessories? Radiators, if necessary, oil coolers, always necessary, superchargers or turbochargers, fuel and oil tanks? Bombs, bomb racks, guns? Ammunition tanks? Will you have armour around them, and if so, how much?

Once you have decided on that the age old problem of aircraft design, weight, comes into play. All of the above (and a lot more we haven't included!) is dead weight - this means that it's not contributing anything to the airplane's strength. You need structures like the airplane fuselage and Wing spars to give strength to the plane, and don't forget these have weight, too. They have to carry themselves and the weight of the rest of the plane as well.

And how will we balance this weight so that the aircraft is neither too nose nor tail heavy? We have to think of that.

And, of course, wing design - what type of airfoil design we will use - is an art in itself.

All this shows that aircraft design, even a paper aircraft, is a very, very complex design indeed, which is why most paper aircraft designers take a proven aircraft as a template and make a few changes here and there. Wildly mixing and matching aircraft any old how - like, say, saying you're going to mate the wings of the spitfire with the body of a mustang and then add the leading edge slats of the 109 - is just a pipe dream.

I took a very deeeeep breath when designing the BB 129 because it was unlike any template that had been seen before. But I have put a lot of deep thought into it, and I think that design will fly....when I finish X-planing it someday i will post the file here.

that's why all of my "designs" are existing proven airframes with power plant changes, armament additions and subtractions, and (sometimes) different construction materials and armor compromises.

 

[Soren]

I was thinking about this:

A Fw-190 Dora with somewhat lenghtened wings, from 10.5m to 12.5m. And the powerplant would be the Jumo 213EB running on C3 fuel producing some 2,500 PS take off power with MW50.

Features would be much like the Dora-13:

Automated engine prop control
Gyro gunsight
Autopilot
Pressurized cockpit
GM-1 high alt boost
2x 20mm MG-15/20's + 1x 30mm Mk108

I'd suspect performance to be around ~800 km/h at altitude, ~6,000 ft/min climb rate, 15.5 to 16 km ceiling.