Fictional challenge! The H-1 Racer was approved as an American fighter in 1936.

[Grasshopper"Baby Baby"]

A Porsche Ferdinand or Elefant fire truck would be interesting. If the only mods were paint and lights, the gun could be used to create fire breaks in a city instead of dynamiting houses.

Technically, it does, you could make it a Battalion Chief's response vehicle, FYI, I'm a FF myself, so I can't really be proved wrong, we've done this many times at our department.

 

[Big Jake]

re

I am not sure about the need to improve visibility - not that it would not be nice to do so, but when I look at the IAR.80 I do not recall any major (actually any) complaints about visibility. The F4U had its canopy moved back despite its use as a carrier airplane. Does anyone know if this was a significant impediment to effective operations in real life - either in the air or in TO & recovery ops? (I realize that the cockpit on the F4U is not as far back as on the H-1/XP-2, but since the H-1/XP-2 was intended for land ops . . .?)

IAR.80
View attachment 826691

Early F4U was notorious for bad pilot's vision over the nose. That's why the cockpit was raised and even the tail wheel strut extended.

As for the H-1 converted into a fighter - it would never have worked. It would have required redesigning the whole structure to withstand much higher loads - repeated operation at high G loads (+ and -), accommodate armament, armour plating, self sealing tanks and support equipment (oxygen canisters, radios)., and larger fuel storage. All of this would have resulted in a huge increase in weight. This increase will require a bigger engine (more weight again). This increase in weight would have required a beefed up landing gear (weight again). So, just because it "looked" right does not mean anything.

The P-36/P-40 were the right way to go however, like the early P-51s, suffered from Allison's inability to provide the 1770 with a good supercharger resulting in poor performance at altitude.

 

[ThomasP]

The H-1B Racer carried 250 USgal internally, while after modification for the cross-country record attempt it carried 280 USgal. Yes it might have had a reduction in storage if self-sealing tanks were fitted, but assuming it was no more than usual, the H-1 wold still have had more internal fuel than any(?) single-engine USAAC/AAF pursuit plane up until the P-47.

The H-1B Racer was stressed for a 9G pullout from a dive, so this would yield about the same ultimate 12G as the normal pursuit aircraft of the time. I do not have any numbers on the modified cross-country aircraft with the larger wings and additional fuel tankage.

The H-1B was primarily made of wood. The XP-2 airframe (based on the H-1) that Hughes put forward for the 1935 Army Specification X-603 was of all-metal construction, with a larger elliptical wing of greater span, 4x MG (2x in each wing), and all the normal pursuit aircraft equipment. Again, the XP-2 variant was stressed for the normal pursuit airframe G-loads of the time.

This is the abbreviated Detailed Specification for the Hughes XP-2 aircraft as offered to the USAAC:

re

Early F4U was notorious for bad pilot's vision over the nose. That's why the cockpit was raised and even the tail wheel strut extended.

True, but the original 1940 F4U prototype had the cockpit much farther forward, and it was moved back to the position of the production version in order to allow a larger fuselage fuel tank on the CoG - despite the reduced visibility. Also, I am only advocating for possible use by the USAAC as a land-based pursuit fighter, where in theory the long nose would not be as much of a problem as on carriers.

 

[buffnut453]

The H-1B Racer was stressed for a 9G pullout from a dive, so this would yield about the same ultimate 12G as the normal pursuit aircraft of the time. I do not have any numbers on the modified cross-country aircraft with the larger wings and additional fuel tankage.

But that's just for carrying the pilot and the fuel. It would need more structural strength to also carry weapons, which adds weight, which affect a performance…and you end up with maths that just won't work.

That's on top of changes necessary for maintenance under combat conditions. Access panels for weapons is just one small change that would have a HUGE impact on the airframe, as well as (again) reducing performance.

Turning the H-1B into a fighter needs a completely new design because your starting set of requirements are so different from those of a one-off racer airframe.

The H-1B was primarily made of wood. The XP-2 airframe (based on the H-1) that Hughes put forward for the 1935 Army Specification X-603 was of all-metal construction, with a larger elliptical wing of greater span, 4x MG (2x in each wing), and all the normal pursuit aircraft equipment. Again, the XP-2 variant was stressed for the normal pursuit airframe G-loads of the time.

The airframe redesign to accommodate guns is presumably what Hughes did to come up with the XP-2….and yet the design still lost out to a Wedell Williams alternative which, itself, went nowhere.

There is simply no way to magic-wand the H-1B into a mass-produced combat aircraft.

 

[Shortround6]

The H-1 fell right into the cross over from fixed cowl/cooling to adjustable cowling/flaps. The cowl was beautiful but it did not provide the adjustment needed for a service aircraft in varying conditions.
I have no idea what Hughes was planning for the landing gear on the XP-2 or the H-1B but the H-1 landing gear was totally unusable by a service fighter. Tiny pneumatic tires that provided the only shock absorption/dampening for the landing gear. The landing gear doors were a thin box that doubled as the landing gear strut.

Ingenious for light weight. For a service fighter taking occasional hard landings?

There were a lot of things that could be changed/needed to be changed but at some point the changes start to overwhelm the project.

 

[fannum]

Seductive for speculating, but a history of failures in reality.
Note that as early as WWI, the Deperdussin 1912 Racer was tried to be adapted as a warplane, and wasn't successful (though emphasis on observation role then was likely a factor)
Caudron racer adaptations were still born in WW2.
Many "warplane record setters like Me109R and early MiG21 were cobbled and stripped testbeds, and of course, Spitfire ties to the Supermarine S-6R Schneider seaplanes was early war patriotic PR.
Just a few failed racer to warplane attempts.

 

[SaparotRob]

I thought this thread was primarily about how cool the plane would look in military livery.

 

[fannum]

I thought this thread was primarily about how cool the plane would look in military livery.

C'mon Rob!
When Al and DARPA laid out the internet, they firmly established the First Article in the Ethernatal Bill of Rights:
There shall be no infringement on the Right to Hijack a Thread for any reason; fair or foul, correct or incorrect, intelligent or idiotic, and fact based or fantasy.
So it is written, and so it shall be, ever and thereafter, Amen!

 

[SaparotRob]

Amen Brother. Testify!

 

[_PabloSniper_]

I thought this thread was primarily about how cool the plane would look in military livery.

That was my idea when creating this topic, but unfortunately I am not a forum moderator.