Could you have designed a better Warbird?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Could you have designed a better Warbird for any side, using only the technology known and in use at the time, staying within reasonable cost parameters, yet making enough of a difference to have been worth producing?

No

Jack
 
Soren, interesting. A few questions.

When is this plane supposed to enter service?

Why are the wings lengthened? What effect do you think it will have on the planes's roll and turn rates?

Weight...what type of take off weight were you thinking of? (Remember you have both the Methanol and Nitrogen installations, which will add weight.)
And power to weight ratio, and wing loading?
 
Burmese Bandit said:
Soren, interesting. A few questions.

When is this plane supposed to enter service?
Click to expand...

Sometime in late 44 if it gets priority status.

Why are the wings lengthened? What effect do you think it will have on the planes's roll and turn rates?
Click to expand...

The reason I want to lengthen the wings is to ensure good maneuverability at high altitude. The extra few meters of wing will add very little in weight, maybe 50kg and the increased Aspect Ratio will increase lift decrease drag, greatly improving the L/D ratio and improving turn performance. So turn performance will improve. As to roll rate, it will decrease vs the original 190, but that's no problem, it'll still be very good. (The Ta152H which featured 14.5m long wings still featured great roll rate)

Weight...what type of take off weight were you thinking of? (Remember you have both the Methanol and Nitrogen installations, which will add weight.)
And power to weight ratio, and wing loading?
Click to expand...

I think it'll weigh around 4,400 to 4,475 kg. The wing area will probably be 20.5 m^2, and the engine out 2,500 HP.

So it would be a 214 Kg/m^2 pure wing-loading (L/W ratio will be good because of wing design) and a 1.76 Kg/HP power-loading, which is very good. The new prop added on the Dora-13 Ta152 also improved thrust.
 
Excellent Soren. Clear now.

A suggestion on armament. Do you think 6 x MG 131 would work better against the Mustangs than the 2 x 20 mm? (this of course will lead to a discussion much like the "Best Armed Fighter" thread.)
 
I greatly prefer the 2x 20mm cannons + the 1x 30mm cannon arrangement.

Also I don't like the idea of too many guns in the wings, the holes in the leading edge of the wing and the petruding barrels will disturb the airfoil over the wing. Hence why German fighter a/c usually had litte to no wing armament, esp. later in the war.
 
Another interesting idea could be the He-162 with a HeS.011 engine and 4x 20mm MG151/20s as armament. One could add swepped wings to the a/c, but the original wings are really good enough to begin with so no need for that. Automatic LE slats would also prove beneficial. I'd probably also widen some of the fuselage slightly to incorperate more fuel and the extra guns and their ammo. Some streamlined topwing fuel droptanks like those tested on the Fw190 I'd make available for long range missions, but the main task would still be homeland defense.

Performance I'd suspect to be phenomenal, a 1,000 + km/h top speed, 7,500 ft/min climb rate, 14.5 km ceiling.

Now as to when it would enter service, well too late to alter the course of the war, but my guess is very late 44 if given absolute priority status.
 
Well, I finished Achilles' project, but unfortunately nobody of my friends has A3 scanner, so I put it here later.
It could carry about 20-22,000 lbs bombs, it has 14 .50 Brownings (2 in forward turret, 2 in upper turret, 2 in Sperry ball turret, 4 in side gunners compartment -2 on each side-and 4 in tail gunner compartment.
Crew - 11: bombardier, forward gunner, pilot, co-pilot, radio-operator, navigator, upper gunner, ball turret gunner, 2 side gunners and tail gunner.
Length: 28,51 m

I have few ideas for Allies to make Achilles more efficient bomber than Lancaster, B-17 or B-24. I'll post them soon.
 
Considering that it wasn't new technology, only more refined application of it, the best think I could possibly do is create a P-51D in 1938.

I'd like to see it powered by a RR Griffon though. I have long thought that it was a magnificent engine that was derailed in development by the BoB.
 
Absolutely agree! First engine in the world with four valves per cylinder, first with grooves in the engine block for oil...the 'firsts' go on and on...
 
I think a Griffon powered P-51D armed with 20mm Cannon would be the ultimate WWII fighter.

Just because I'm not wise enough to leave well enough alone. 4 wing guns and two cowl guns would be a scary experiment.
 
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.
 
The Allisons in the P-38 were excellent at altitude in fact. The size of the installation allowed for full size turbochargers that smaller single-engine fighters were unable to fit.

Their only real struggle was actually with wave turbulence caused by going near the speed of sound in dives. a vacuum would form around the tail surfaces, rendering them useless and often trapping pilots in a steep dive with only one chance to save themselves, thicker air at low alt. That and the lack of an ejector seat. bail out of one any way but off the wing and you were liable to get cut in half.
 
Clay_Allison said:
I think a Griffon powered P-51D armed with 20mm Cannon would be the ultimate WWII fighter.
Click to expand...

Well the Griffon was quite heavy, and that would limit performance.

However I think that if the airfoil design was changed to a more lift efficient one along with the introduction of the Griffon engine, then it would likely be one of the best out there.
 
Griffons were heavy, true, but with liquid inline engine fighters used in the 'zoom and boom' style of fighting, weight was far less of a consideration than total hp. Besides, as an engine and its support structure is only about 15-25% of the total weight of a fighter, if a 25% increase in weight in an engine and its support structure results in a 25% increase in hp (or even slightly less) then overall, the power to weigh ratio still increases.
 
Oh I agree, it's just a matter of how much the performance increases over the original and how soon it can be applied. I don't see it entering service before 45 in the shape of the P-51H which featured a 2,270 HP V-1650-11 engine plus a refined airframe structure. And seeing that the German were fielding jets by that time, the P-51H would've been a waste of resources, atleast if the Allies were looking for a fighter able to compete with the German fighters.

If it's all about a new engine, well then I'd put my money on jet technology, making sure that I get new jet engines into service. Imagine Jumo 004E equipped Me-262's in mid 1944, that would make an invasion of France impossible, and in the east the VVS would've been rid from the skies.

That Hitler delayed the jet engine programme is really a blessing for us all, cause that is definitely one area the Germans could've succeeded in taking advantage of and turned the tide with.
 
That Hitler delayed the jet engine programme is really a blessing for us all,
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 

Both Griffon and P-51 were available in 1943, not the case with 262/004E combo. So, a piston engined plane capable of 750 km/h in 43 it is (would've been...).
 
Yep. And IF the strategic decision to give away the rights to Griffon development to an American Company had been taken in 1940 we may have had a 2000 hp + Griffon coming off in numbers in the production lines by January 1943!!!
 
something about the weight of the Griffon, due to the weight of the aft gas tank, the Mustang was butt heavy, especially on takeoff. A little more nose weight to balance would be no bad thing.

Also I agree with B.B. if the patent was leased to Packard on the cheap and they were allowed to continue development in 1938 when IIRC, the decision was made to concentrate on the Merlin, we have 1750 Hp in 1942 as we kick off the war. Even P-40s wouldn't fly heavy with that kind of power plant and a popellar with 4 big blades instead of three thin ones.
 
Trying to upload Clay's wooden Finnish Fighter based on the Me 109...
 

Attachments

  • vl_pyorremyrsky.gif
    28.2 KB · Views: 91
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Better Dambusters
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GTX
A
A better Armstrong Whitworth Whitley
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
wuzak
W
S
Why airplanes were designed the way they were.
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
8K
EwenS
E
W
Here's a test for you all...
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GrauGeist
FG 42, but designed around a non-German cartridge from day 1
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register