Fighters Made in USA, for mid 1943: how would you do it?

tomo pauk · Apr 25, 2011

A glance at 'fresh air' ducting tunnel of the P-47 shows it takes plenty of space. So let's install a belly scoop to feed the turbo inter-cooler, and a new fuel tank is located now between exhaust ducts, instead of fresh air tunnel. The another fuel tank is between pilot's seat inter-cooler. With another 200-250 gals of fuel, belly drop tank is superfluous.

gjs238 · Apr 26, 2011

Nice P-47 drawing.
What happens if you swap a V-1710 for the R-2800?
How much smaller/streamlined/lighter can the plane become?

tomo pauk · Apr 26, 2011

We end up at something US-built Fairey Firefly - big plane with not enough power
Okay, perhaps some 700-1000lbs can be shaved out, or only some 5-8% of take-off weight; 10% at best (ie. TO weight reduced at 90-95%). Some drag also.
In the same time, power is reduced at 71% (MIL), or 80% (WEP - a shortest time power setting), and that's for 1943; in 1944 P-47 develops extra 300 HP. Not that good for V-1710

P-43 was perhaps the best airframe for turboed V-1710, but it never happened.

gjs238 · Apr 26, 2011

That's what I was thinking.
Not literally swapping the V-1710 for the R-2800, but if the plane had evolved/developed with the V-1710.
Could be interesting.

tomo pauk · Apr 27, 2011

Republic was offering (X)P-47A, basically what you propose; it was re-modelled to the (X)P-47B - Thunderbolt as we know it. Curtiss was offering the XP-60, in one of variants it sported turboed V-1710 - it was not accepted for mass production in any sort.

Such a plane, if properly designed, would've offered circa 400mph at altitude in early 1943 (1425 HP @ MIL; even more if/when 1600 HP @ WEP becomes available), with better mileage than P-47C. Perhaps just 6 x .50 cals - enough for the duty.

gjs238 · Apr 27, 2011

A feasible, single-engine, V-1710 based, turbocharged aircraft seems to be elusive.

tomo pauk · Apr 27, 2011

It was certainly feasible, but USAAC decided to pursue R-2800/Merlin/two-stage V-1710s path for the high-performance single-engined fighters.

gjs238 · Apr 27, 2011

But that shouldn't stop you from designing one for us now

tomo pauk · Apr 27, 2011

A sketch from one of previous threads, P-43 with V-1710 'stead of R-1830:

tomo pauk · Apr 27, 2011

Rough schematics of 51 with turbo. Coolers in, now, deeper chin, exhaust ducted mostly externally towards turbo (fresh air ducting not shown), the compressed air goes to inter cooler, and then to carb.
Same idea applicable for P-40.

HBBates · May 7, 2011

I would like to see a development of the P36/P40 as a cleaned up/lighter version of the P42 along the lines of the Fw190 La5/7 (copy that tight Fw190 cowl/power egg, jet exhaust stacks setup like ever one did)... make it an all Curtiss product using the 14 cyl R2600 that about matches up( and has some common history) with the BMW801 and Ash82

Again think Fw190 La5/7 (I much perfer aircooled engines for combat aircraft because of ease of survice and they can take battle damage)

tomo pauk · May 8, 2011

The P-40 (or P-36) R-2600 combo is discussed in some threads @ this sub forum; I've learned a lot there

P-39 Expert · Apr 11, 2018

All that was needed for the P-39 was just remove the rifle caliber wing guns and probably the nose armor plate. Leave the rest of the armor plate and glass. The remaining guns (37mm cannon and twin .50s) were considered devastating by the Russians. The weight saved would have done wonders for climb and added a little speed, maybe 10mph.

Then take the Allison upgrade to 9.6 supercharger gears in late '42 and push hard for the mechanical two stage Allison that was in production in March '43. Keep the weight down (no .30 cal wing guns) and performance was good.

wuzak · Apr 11, 2018

All they needed to do to the P-39 was to move the pilot forward a bit, move the prop to the rear, enlarge the fuel tank, add power, use a Y-tail (see Bugatti 100P to see what I mean), ditch the nose wheel, ditch all the piddly little machine guns (yes 0.50"s, that mean s you too) and the boat anchor (the 37mm cannon) and install 4 20mm canon, 2 on either side of the nose. Enlarge the wing if need be, and the radiator to cope with the extra power.

Still, probably, none of the western allies would want them.

Shortround6 · Apr 11, 2018

P-39 Expert said:
All that was needed for the P-39 was just remove the rifle caliber wing guns and probably the nose armor plate. Leave the rest of the armor plate and glass. The remaining guns (37mm cannon and twin .50s) were considered devastating by the Russians. The weight saved would have done wonders for climb and added a little speed, maybe 10mph.

Then take the Allison upgrade to 9.6 supercharger gears in late '42 and push hard for the mechanical two stage Allison that was in production in March '43. Keep the weight down (no .30 cal wing guns) and performance was good.

Hmmm, still doesn't solve the range problem.
Look at Russian fighters to get an idea of what they considered "devastating" Mig-3 one 12.7mm gun and two 7.62s. Early Laggs and Yaks, one 20mm and two 7.62mm. Some Yaks got one 20mm and one 12.7mm. La-5 had two 20mm guns, synchronised.

You are expecting "wonders" from the removal of 200lbs worth of guns and ammo and under 100lbs or armor.

Most other aircraft, while they did better with such a reduction in weight, did not move into the "wonder" catagory.
You could take a MK V Spit and strap a 90 imp gallon tank under it (790lbs) and only loose around 500fpm of climb and in fact climb to 20,000ft changed from 8 minutes to 10 minutes.
Taking out 300lbs from a 7600lb plane was not going to turn it into wonder plane

P-39 Expert · Apr 11, 2018

For it to be a real benefit the weight would need to be around 7100#. A P-39F in production right around Pearl Harbor would do it.
5409 empty
200 pilot with chute
70 oil
720 120gal fuel
580 37mm (300#), 2x.50 (275#) gunsight (5#)
130 armor plate and glass (not incl. 100# nose armor)
7109 Total gross wt.
The P-39C grossed 7075# and would climb at 3720fpm at 10000' which was 1000fpm better than a standard weight P-39K.

Regarding range, the P-39 held more internal gas than the Spitfire, Yak and Me109. Compared to a P-38F/G, after deducting the reserve for takeoff and climb to 5000' (25gal for P-38 and 16gal for P-39) the P-39 held only 21gal less fuel per engine.

pbehn · Apr 11, 2018

Try removing the 200lb pilot and putting him in something else.

Shortround6 · Apr 11, 2018

P-39 Expert said:
For it to be a real benefit the weight would need to be around 7100#. A P-39F in production right around Pearl Harbor would do it.
5409 empty
200 pilot with chute
70 oil
720 120gal fuel
580 37mm (300#), 2x.50 (275#) gunsight (5#)
130 armor plate and glass (not incl. 100# nose armor)
7109 Total gross wt.
The P-39C grossed 7075# and would climb at 3720fpm at 10000' which was 1000fpm better than a standard weight P-39K.

The climb figures were for a plane grossing 6689 lbs.

You want to use a the numbers from WWII Aircraft Performance
Use them but don't twist them.

Regarding range, the P-39 held more internal gas than the Spitfire, Yak and Me109. Compared to a P-38F/G, after deducting the reserve for takeoff and climb to 5000' (25gal for P-38 and 16gal for P-39) the P-39 held only 21gal less fuel per engine.

Of course we will totally disregard the FACT that the P-38 did NOT have TWICE the drag of the P-39 and therefore did not need TWICE the fuel to fo the same distance????

P-39 Expert · Apr 11, 2018

Shortround6 said:
The climb figures were for a plane grossing 6689 lbs.

You want to use a the numbers from WWII Aircraft Performance
Use them but don't twist them.

Of course we will totally disregard the FACT that the P-38 did NOT have TWICE the drag of the P-39 and therefore did not need TWICE the fuel to fo the same distance????

The 6689# is average fuel for the flight as I have explained before. I imagine the P-38 did have twice the drag as a P-39 and weighed 2.2x as much as this P-39. Fuel quoted was per engine on P-38.

Shortround6 · Apr 11, 2018

P-39 Expert said:
The 6689# is average fuel for the flight as I have explained before. I imagine the P-38 did have twice the drag as a P-39 and weighed 2.2x as much as this P-39. Fuel quoted was per engine on P-38.

Unless you can come up with a document or statement that says they were using average fuel weight for tests I am not buying it.
We have given you the fuel consumption figures for the P-38 but since you don't like the results you choose to imagine that is has twice the drag.
weight is not drag as proved by the P-51 Allison Mustang
1130hp at 12,650ft for a 8824lb plane was 390mph. WIththis gun installation

strangely with only two cannon installed and no armor(?) it weighed 8114lbs the engine gave 20more HP and the plane picked up a whopping 6mph. Due to lighter weight or less drag?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51_41-37320_PHQ-M-19-1415-A.pdf

A P-38F clean at 15,000ft gets 5.7mpg at 190IAS/240 true.
..........................................3.57mpg at 225IAS/275 true.
...........................................3.0mpg at 255IAS/305 true.
as per the manual.

Care to tell use what the P-39 got at comparable speeds/altitudes?

Fighters Made in USA, for mid 1943: how would you do it?

Creator of Interesting Threads

Attachments

Tech Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Tech Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Tech Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Tech Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Attachments

Creator of Interesting Threads

Attachments

Recruit

Creator of Interesting Threads

Non-Expert

Captain

Major General

Non-Expert

Colonel

Major General

Non-Expert

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads