De-Suckifying the YFM-1: Building an American Heavy-Fighter

[Lucky13]

Interesting indeed!

 

[Shortround6]

. After all the YFM-2 was based on the Loadstar (possibly the Super Electra), and the P-61 was inspired by a three-seat turret-fighter called the Shrike (at least, I think it was a fighter).

Where do you get this stuff?
Lockheed Model 14 Super Electra first flight July 29, 1937

YFM-2 first flight September 1st 1937

One month is not enough to turn a 14 passenger Airliner into the YFM-2, It would also have been incredibly dumb to lose the fowler flaps the Model 14 used.

Lockheed 18 Loadstar which was a stretched fuselage model 14 with extra row/s of seats. It came after the Model 14. They used the same wing.

Aside from twin engines and being roughly the same size what did the Lockheed 14 and the YFM-2 have in common.

As I mentioned before, the YFM-2 was LARGE Airplane.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Zipper, you do realize that the Airacuda had wing bigger in span and larger in area than the short wing on the Martin B-26 bomber?

And somewhere around half the horsepower. For a fighter ?? When I look at photos and drawings of this aerial Electrolux, all I see is LARD. Only 2000 horsepower to lug this brontosaurus around and you want to call it a FIGHTER? Given the performance targets you want it to meet, you'll have to pare down its weight, frontal area, and wing til you have a P38 clone. Given that design exercises to meet similar goals, under similar technogical limitations, tend to arrive at similar solutions, do you really think the depression-ridden defense budgets of the mid 30s could afford another high performance twin engine fighter? How many 'Cudas did they buy?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Claire Chennault had pointed out the absurdity of trying to produce a plane the size of a bomber with a whole lot of firepower that is expected to be faster than a bomber -- unfortunately, he wasn't really listened to (part of me wonders if this is what got him bounced out of the service).

The "bomber boys" ran the Air Corps in the late 30s, and, mesmerized by the vision of sleek, powerful, heavy bombers too fast and too high for a pursuit to catch, begrudged the allocation of any fighter resources beyond the bread-and-butter mission of troop support. Chennault was guilty of heresy in pointing out the emperor's costume deficit, and of continuing to spread the gospel in defiance of the chain of command. Billy Mitchell 2.0.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Graeme]

 

[XBe02Drvr]

View attachment 562725

How about a DO870? (two DO435s stuck together F82 style)
Cheers,
Wes

 

[wuzak]

How about a DO870? (two DO435s stuck together F82 style)
Cheers,
Wes

You mean the Ju 635?

http://www.luft46.com/junkers/ju635.html

 

[XBe02Drvr]

You mean the Ju 635?

http://www.luft46.com/junkers/ju635.html

Speak of the devil, and who should appear?

 

[Zipper730]

If you remove all that, you end up with basically the Heavy Fighter version of the B-10 (version without the retractable turret) which they Air Corps did not want, hence the YFM-1 selection.

I'm not sure what the specs of the fighter-version of the B-10 were, but

• The traditional B-10 had a typical crew of 3
• The traditional B-10 had a top-speed of around 200-215 mph
• The traditional B-10 did not appear to have a massive maximum g-load: Most bombers were built to around 3.0-3.5g normal load
• The "De-Suckified YFM-1" which I'll just call the "American Heavy Fighter" would have a crew of 1-2
• The American Heavy Fighter would have a top-speed of around 315 mph at the lower end, and probably more like 335-350 on the upper-end based on the available power and critical altitude.
• The American Heavy Fighter would have an ultimate g-load of 8-11g ultimate (5.33-7.33 normal load-factor).

The "bomber boys" ran the Air Corps in the late 30s, and, mesmerized by the vision of sleek, powerful, heavy bombers too fast and too high for a pursuit to catch, begrudged the allocation of any fighter resources beyond the bread-and-butter mission of troop support.

Yet they did periodically propose escort planes. They did, at first, propose single-engined designs, as was the norm; then switched to flying bomber-defense gunships. The turret-idea was simply an unnecessary concept -- even the P-61 flew without turrets a lot.

Chennault was guilty of heresy in pointing out the emperor's costume deficit

That is actually, entirely correct.

 

[pgf_666]

I if it would have been a useful night-fighter?

 

[Zipper730]

I if it would have been a useful night-fighter?

It'd probably be better than the P-70 as it would have had overall superior agility. I think that the P-61 was ultimately the better choice.

 

[Zipper730]

Where do you get this stuff?

It actually came from you (reply #32, this thread): You mentioned the YFM-2 which appeared to be based on the Super Electra design -- probably a parallel development.

As for the idea of twin-seat fighters and stuff appeared to have originated from developments in World War I, such as the Vickers Gunbus, and the Bristol F.2B, as well as influences from the French. I'm not sure the exact decision making process, but apparently, we were heavily inspired by the French, in regard to twin-seat fighters.

This quote comes from Chapter 1 of Warren M. Bodie's book "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning", there's a mention of the U.S. being heavily inspired by the French, in regard to twin-seat fighters.

The Office of the Chief of the Air Corps wanted an advanced bomber-escort fighter designed to a concept then in worldwide favor because France - considered the air-power of the day - had embraced that format with open arms. This new fighter would be a two-seater of metal construction, featuring the monoplane wing and those brand new Lockheed-developed assets, a fully retractable landing-gear and a cockpit enclosure.

. . . .

France's Armee de l'Air, probably by far the most powerful and recognizable air power on earth in the 1920's and early 1930's by shear force of numbers, was the leading advocate of the multiseat bomber-destroyer format. The French were irrevocably enmeshed in an affair de coeur with these so called "aerial destroyers" that never could seem to decide if they wanted to be bombers or pursuits. Favored designs ran the gamut from twin-engine, slab-sided flying greenhouses, as exemplified by the gigantic and ugly Bleriot 127, to the single engine, two-seater sesquiplane or the tandem-wing, twin-tail monstrosity identified as the Arsenal Delanne Type 10.

The first half of this came from Pages 2-3, IIRC, and the latter half of this quote came from Page 10.

I'm not sure how many influences the Germans had from the French, but I do remember reading about the Germans developing a design called the Hs.124.

 

[ClayO]

1. crew of 1
2. ditch the 37mm's for a combination of machine guns and cannon
3. tricycle landing gear
4. much smaller wings and shorter fuselage
5. jet engines
...and you have the YP-59A. Oops. Never mind.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

1. crew of 1
2. ditch the 37mm's for a combination of machine guns and cannon
3. tricycle landing gear
4. much smaller wings and shorter fuselage
5. jet engines
...and you have the YP-59A. Oops. Never mind.

Or, if you swap the 37s for 30s and sweep the wings a little, a REAL jet fighter: ME262.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[vikingBerserker]

I'm not sure what the specs of the fighter-version of the B-10 were, but

• The traditional B-10 had a typical crew of 3
• The traditional B-10 had a top-speed of around 200-215 mph
• The traditional B-10 did not appear to have a massive maximum g-load: Most bombers were built to around 3.0-3.5g normal load
• The "De-Suckified YFM-1" which I'll just call the "American Heavy Fighter" would have a crew of 1-2
• The American Heavy Fighter would have a top-speed of around 315 mph at the lower end, and probably more like 335-350 on the upper-end based on the available power and critical altitude.
• The American Heavy Fighter would have an ultimate g-load of 8-11g ultimate (5.33-7.33 normal load-factor).

Work on it started in early 1933 with 2 additional .30 caliber machine guns added, one on each side and 1-2 added firing forward controlled by the pilot. 10 x 15lb bombs could also be carried as it would also perform recon and night time missions. It would retain the crew of 3-4 and speed was expected to hit 250 mpg being powered by 2 x R-1820-19 Cyclones rated at 675 hp. G-load would have been increased, however to what extent was not determined.

 

[Zipper730]

Work on it started in early 1933 with 2 additional .30 caliber machine guns added, one on each side and 1-2 added firing forward controlled by the pilot.

So, the plane would have 1-2 forward firing guns which the pilot would shoot; the nose-turret, the rear gunner, and 2 x waist guns?

10 x 15lb bombs could also be carried as it would also perform recon and night time missions.

Asking for too much...

It would retain the crew of 3-4 and speed was expected to hit 250 mpg being powered by 2 x R-1820-19 Cyclones rated at 675 hp.

If the horsepower was bumped up to 1200 like on the B-17 you could have seen 302 mph out of it, ironically (at least, applying the cube rule).

G-load would have been increased, however to what extent was not determined.

It seems an overkill way to achieve a much simpler result.

Did the fire-control system of the day require two crew?

 

[Zipper730]

Another idea I was thinking of was an earlier XB-42 like design. This would be smaller, but the shape wouldn't be much different from what I drew a little bit earlier, with the following changes.

1. Remove the engine nacelles
2. Reposition the vertical stabilizer
3. Add a ventral fin to allow the prop to clear the ground
4. Incorporate a nose-gear from the outset
5. Put the two V-1710's in the fuselage and put the two props in a coaxial configuration
6. Add some extra fuel in the span that the nacelles previously occupied.

 

[Zipper730]

I believe that Robert J Woods, Bell's chief designer, started working on what would become the Airacuda in 1934 while working for Consolidated. He was the Chief designer for the turbo charged P-30.

That's actually pretty interesting: Though it makes sense. The P-30 was a twin-man fighter with a rear-gunner. I guess he figured more power was the key.

I wonder what the initial concept looked like in 1934. The USAAC didn't seem to have much interest in such a plane until 1935 from what I recall (I'm not sure if it was the modified B-10

The "bomber boys" ran the Air Corps in the late 30s, and, mesmerized by the vision of sleek, powerful, heavy bombers too fast and too high for a pursuit to catch, begrudged the allocation of any fighter resources beyond the bread-and-butter mission of troop support. Chennault was guilty of heresy in pointing out the emperor's costume deficit, and of continuing to spread the gospel in defiance of the chain of command. Billy Mitchell 2.0.

I take it Chennault was a very blunt person. I'm not sure if he had much skill at manipulating the system. From what Warren Bodie wrote in his book about the P-38, the B-10 Fighter/YFM-1 is what got him bounced out of the USAAC -- That said, maybe it's a good thing: Him getting bounced from the USAAC let him lead the AVG where he was able to develop fighter tactics.

 

[Zipper730]

The gyroscopic sighting system that was proposed for the aircraft: Why did it require two people? Could it have been reworked to be used by one person? While this might sound like a stupid question, if a plane was designed as a twin-seater: Could it be repurposed into a single-seater later on?

Graeme S Shortround6 vikingBerserker X XBe02Drvr

 

[nuuumannn]

It actually came from you (reply #32, this thread): You mentioned the YFM-2 which appeared to be based on the Super Electra design -- probably a parallel development.

I think you've misrepresented Shorty's post somewhat and nowhere does it say the Airacuda was based on the Lockheed Super Electra. What it says is that the Lockheed entry to the specification was based on its own work, but that it lost to the Airacuda. However, design aspects for the Airacuda came from Robert J Woods who worked for both Lockheed and Consolidated, but the designers did not base their aircraft on the Lockheed one.