How badly would a plane like this perform?

[Clay_Allison]

Designing and mounting a new wing on an elderly aircraft like the Hurricane would be a pointless exercise. Yes, it was kept in production for a long period during the war but this was only because the facilities were up and running. It's time had past; it was of an older generation (wooden formers and stringers covered by fabric) and a more aerodynamically advanced aircraft built of then modern materials would surely have been the direction to go. In other words a new aircraft. Can you say P-51?

We were still flying P-40s in 1944 would we do that if we had enough P-51s? I was thinking Export Fighter, cheap to build, easy to fly, capable of fighting effectively with a situational advantage. The P-36 cost $23,000 per unit. The P-51 cost $50k, it also used Merlins that were scarce enough that the P-40 couldn't have them. The P-40 cost $44k. The P-39 cost $50k. I am looking for an idea for a plane in the 25-30k range.

 

[vanir]

Those wouldn't be adjusted figures. The P-36 might've cost 23K in 1938. But it's basically the same as a 1941 P-40 with a different motor that somehow I don't think accounts for an 11K price increase.
You might argue the price goes up for the P-40B with the British armour requirements and the P-40D with the self sealing tanks and some new tooling for the R-series Allison. But then substitute Mohawks to continental forces in 1940-41 and they want these things too, so again you're looking at the only price difference being engine. I'd say for current production and adjusted dollars, with identical equipment you're looking at virtually the same price between a P-36 and a P-40, perhaps what, 3K difference for the motor? And a ton of better performance for the same output, actually much better output under 5000ft and a smaller frontal area on the same plane.

P-36 for 1938-9 yes, but definitely P-40 all the way from 1940. It was hampered only by supercharger-altitude sizing but even Allison themselves claim 1780hp at 66-70" Hg for the F3R on 100/130 up to a thousand feet. The fact it could even achieve that output without exploding on the tarmac is proof that with supercharger resizing you could've been looking at an a/c with an easy 1600hp at 15,000ft and that's as good as any other front line fighter in 1942 anywhere. So you lose a few km/h in straightline speed for the older design, big deal, nobody cares in a shooting fight. This isn't racing. Climb, dive, turn, roll and sheer power would be excellent.
As it was this circumstantial matter meant you had at best 1100hp WEP at 11,000ft until the F20 series where you had that at 15,000ft and it's just not enough power at altitude. That's the killer, and it's just supercharging.

The P-40 was definitely the right export fighter. IMHO the OP really relates to a license production design of mixed construction to be produced in other nations with engines and some parts supplied by the US.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... I am under the impression the Lancaster bomber had priority for Packard built Merlin engines."

And de Havilland Toronto-built Mossies. The USAAF took delivery of some of those for reconaissance duties.

As for Canada Car and Foundry's "old fashioned tooling and techniques", Clay, do you have a source...? The factory went on to build Helldivers for Curtiss.

MM

 

[Shortround6]

How about allowing Howard Hughes build a lightweight figther built around a slightly larger H-1 racer and the R-1830, with two 50s and two 30s or four .50s, and some typical, for the day, protection. Flying in 1937, should have been cheap, fast and maneuverable, possibly equalling or passing the performance of the contemporary Bf-109 and Spitfire.

Not a chance. by the time you enlarge it, add the armament package and protectoin, restress it handle fighter manauvers (more structural weight), fit it with a a higher drag/higher visabilty canopy and factor in a normal production plane fit and finish instead of the high polish oneoff racer fiinish all of the advantages in performance will pretty much disappear.

 

[Shortround6]

We were still flying P-40s in 1944 would we do that if we had enough P-51s? I was thinking Export Fighter, cheap to build, easy to fly, capable of fighting effectively with a situational advantage. The P-36 cost $23,000 per unit. The P-51 cost $50k, it also used Merlins that were scarce enough that the P-40 couldn't have them. The P-40 cost $44k. The P-39 cost $50k. I am looking for an idea for a plane in the 25-30k range.

Do you have any sources for those cost figures. The ones in "Vees for Victory don't seem to match up very well.

some of these planes had 7-12,000 of goverment furnished equipment that was not paid to the airframe manufacturer which could skew the prices if taken into account in one case and not another.

 

[Clay_Allison]

"... I am under the impression the Lancaster bomber had priority for Packard built Merlin engines."

And de Havilland Toronto-built Mossies. The USAAF took delivery of some of those for reconaissance duties.

As for Canada Car and Foundry's "old fashioned tooling and techniques", Clay, do you have a source...? The factory went on to build Helldivers for Curtiss.

MM

Just saying the Hurricane was built using old fashioned construction methods.

Those wouldn't be adjusted figures. The P-36 might've cost 23K in 1938. But it's basically the same as a 1941 P-40 with a different motor that somehow I don't think accounts for an 11K price increase.
You might argue the price goes up for the P-40B with the British armour requirements and the P-40D with the self sealing tanks and some new tooling for the R-series Allison. But then substitute Mohawks to continental forces in 1940-41 and they want these things too, so again you're looking at the only price difference being engine. I'd say for current production and adjusted dollars, with identical equipment you're looking at virtually the same price between a P-36 and a P-40, perhaps what, 3K difference for the motor? And a ton of better performance for the same output, actually much better output under 5000ft and a smaller frontal area on the same plane.

P-36 for 1938-9 yes, but definitely P-40 all the way from 1940. It was hampered only by supercharger-altitude sizing but even Allison themselves claim 1780hp at 66-70" Hg for the F3R on 100/130 up to a thousand feet. The fact it could even achieve that output without exploding on the tarmac is proof that with supercharger resizing you could've been looking at an a/c with an easy 1600hp at 15,000ft and that's as good as any other front line fighter in 1942 anywhere. So you lose a few km/h in straightline speed for the older design, big deal, nobody cares in a shooting fight. This isn't racing. Climb, dive, turn, roll and sheer power would be excellent.
As it was this circumstantial matter meant you had at best 1100hp WEP at 11,000ft until the F20 series where you had that at 15,000ft and it's just not enough power at altitude. That's the killer, and it's just supercharging.

The P-40 was definitely the right export fighter. IMHO the OP really relates to a license production design of mixed construction to be produced in other nations with engines and some parts supplied by the US.

Shortround has been telling me over and over in 100 different ways that better performance at altitude for the P-40 is at least 100% impossible by January 1942, maybe 110%.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".. just saying the Hurricane was built using old fashioned construction methods."

Maybe ... "old fashioned" is a relative term. They were tried and true construction methods - which is more to the point. The C.C. F. plant in Thunder Bay (Port Arthur/Ft William in 1939) was run by a woman - Elsie McGill - Hurricane McGill. You'd do well to Google her, Clay, interesting character.

I've never understood your fixation on "cheap fighters" for the colonies, Clay. Said so before and saying it again. It takes as much effort to train a fighter pilot from the US or UK as it does from the colonies -- in fact -- one colony - Canada did just that - trained fighter pilots for the Commonwealth (and the USA pre-December 7-41) -- consistently.

If it takes consistent effort to train PILOTS - I don't get the point of shoving some of them into "cheap" fighters - unless of course you have a different standard for some pilots (and their lives) than others. Large numbers of "cheap" fighters WORK for the Soviets because that strategy is inline with all their other values -- and it works for them. It doesn't work for the Western Allied forces and it doesn't work for the Germans -- by 1944, green pilots fought in Me-109's and Fw-190's and died in droves - and the dreams of V-weapon "Volksjets" was just that - a dream.

So - to agree with a previous poster - "why design a new wing for an obsolete aircraft"? Can't see it myself - but then I can't see your fixation with a theoretical P-40 upgrade either.

Cheers,

MM

 

[Clay_Allison]

If it takes consistent effort to train PILOTS - I don't get the point of shoving some of them into "cheap" fighters - unless of course you have a different standard for some pilots (and their lives) than others. Large numbers of "cheap" fighters WORK for the Soviets because that strategy is inline with all their other values -- and it works for them.

Weren't we allied with the Chinese? Didn't the Chinese generally lack fighters? Doesn't it fit their values as well as the Soviets' values?

 

[vanir]

Shortround has been telling me over and over in 100 different ways that better performance at altitude for the P-40 is at least 100% impossible by January 1942, maybe 110%.

Fair enough, I'm always happy to be corrected and don't want to hijack the thread when there's at least two on that subject already.

I might reiterate the notation on mixed construction engineering however for the Hurricane. It was suited to 1930's aero industry manufacture, but the US had already moved forwards into all-metal construction by 1935 and the British were doing this in 1938, whilst the Germans were in the fortunate position of restarting their aero industry so were doing so off the right foot to begin with.

So what you're really talking about with the Hurricane or any mixed construction fighter type is manufacture outside the US. Even if you designed such a fighter in the US it would not be produced in the US, it would be license produced elsewhere. And then again why can't any old nation design their own fighters, it was really the aero engine availability which limited fighter design and production in small nations, not any other factor, there has never been any shortage of smarts all across the developed nations.

Thus again an all metal aircraft is needed for US export. Using a readily available engine (ie. the basic Allison, no advanced multistage or turbocharger anciliaries). For cheapness something for which the tooling already exists, something already in manufacture. For contemporary deployment something which is a modern (but not necessarily forward looking) design.

The P-40.

But let's look at license manufacture outside the US instead. In this case let's say you licensed P-40 manufacture to the USSR in 1941 and they actually wanted the design over their Yak and Lavochkin. Well they'd make a mixed construction variant, The P-40S (for Soviet) I'd say metal sparring and wood skinning like the mid-series Yak (the Yak-9). Maybe they'd cover the rear fuselage in fabric like the early-series Yak and Hurricane.
This is simply what their aero industry was geared to produce, all metal construction didn't become realistic until partway into 1945 in Russia. In this case it was due to sheer scale of industry and the high demand on strategic materials.

But I think you'd get similar stories worldwide. Depending on the scale of established industry and strategic material availability, most small nations are probably in a better position to quickly start production of older style aircraft mixed construction, where all-metal designs required not only a full retooling of the industry but completely new manufacturing processes, different skills training, etc.

So for license manufacture, Hurricane.

And as it turns out, the P-40 was a major export fighter and the Hurricane was a major license produced fighter (the MkIV was entirely Canadian wasn't it, called frequently the Canadian Typhoon and actually pioneered 3" rocket rails).

 

[Clay_Allison]

Don't get me wrong about Shortround. I disagree with his conclusions a lot but he has great information. He's been a lot of help in evolving my ideas.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... Weren't we allied with the Chinese? Didn't the Chinese generally lack fighters? Doesn't it fit their values as well as the Soviets' values?"

Yes Clay. Yes. yes and yes. That said - the lack of fighters was the least of the China's problems in 1941 -- 45. It was a civil war and focus and efforts were seriously divided between "enemies" - of which the Japan was only ONE. Pumping masses of cheap fighters to China wouldn't have made a lick of difference to the outcome in theater (except perhaps more opportunities for rip offs and corruption). Building airstrips for USAAF B-29' was actually a far more meaningful contribution.

MM

 

[Shortround6]

For some reason (lack of training?) planes piloted by chinese pilots didn't seem to fare too well. Unless you could really flood China with lots and lots of cheap aircraft you are not going to do much but provide targets for training Japanese pilots.
And considering the logistics train (flying fuel in over the hump in DC-3s,etc) trying to maintain cheap, second rate rate fighters might be a lot more trouble than it is worth.

And if you use a first rate engine like an Allison with constant speed propeller, with standard instraments and radio, retractable landing gear and such the fighter won't be that much cheaper that you can afford to throw them away.

 

[davparlr]

Not a chance. by the time you enlarge it, add the armament package and protectoin, restress it handle fighter manauvers (more structural weight), fit it with a a higher drag/higher visabilty canopy and factor in a normal production plane fit and finish instead of the high polish oneoff racer fiinish all of the advantages in performance will pretty much disappear.

I don't think there is any justification for this. Below is a comparison of three one-off designs, the Hughes H-1, Spitfire K5059, and Bf-109V-1

First Flight
H-1 Sept., 1935
K5059 March 1936
V-1 Sept, 1935

Weight (lbs) Empty, Max
H-1 3565, 5492
K5059 4082, 5359
V-1 3522, 5062

Wing Span (ft)
H-1 24' (31'9" H-1 long range)
K5059 36'10"
V-1 32'4"

Length
H-1 27'
K5059 29'11"
V-1 28'1"

Horsepower
H-1 700 nominal 1000 momentary
K5059 990
V-1 695

Max Airspeed
H-1 353 SL (short wing version)
K5059 349 at 16.8 kft
V-1 292 at 13 kft

It is apparent that the Hughes H-1, Spitfire K5059, and Bf-109V-1 were all very similar in weight, size, and power. All were modern, retracting gear, monoplane configuration aircraft of very clean aerodynamic design.

There is no reason to believe that Howard Hughes would not be able to build a fighter equivalent to the Bf-109 or Spitfire:
1) It is unreasonable to believe that Hughes had not considered a fighter version when he built the H-1. The configuration was quite conventional. It was readily adaptable to extended wing and was still quite fast. He was disappointed that the AAF did not follow up, although personalities were the main reason.
2) It is unknown what stress levels the H-1 was designed to but it is unreasonable to believe that Hughes could not build an aircraft stressed for combat within the parameters of the Bf-109 or Spitfire. The prototype K5054 had no armor or armament, I suspect that neither did the V-1. So the impact to the H-1 would have been no greater than upgrading the other two.
3) Upgrading to the PW-1830 would not be significant. Radial increase would only be 2" and weight gain was less than 200 lbs, hp stress was only 200hp. Upgrading the Bf-109V-1 from the Kestrel to the DB600 required an engine increase of 300 lbs and a hp stress increase of 300 hp. Of course, I am sure both were designed to handle more power and some weight.
4) The 353 mph at SL airspeed record set by the H-1 is very fast. It is as fast as the Spitfire V or Bf-109E-1 at any altitude, and is as fast at SL as a Spitfire IX pulling 25lb boost (80" Hg)! While these aircraft are indeed much heavier, weight has little impact to SL speed. The SL speed of the P-51D at 8k lbs is 369 mph and with 50% more weight at 12000 lbs, the SL airspeed is only 5 mph less at 364 mph. It attest to the clean aerodynamic features of the H-1 that the P-51D, an acclaimed clean aircraft, with 50% more power was only able to obtain 16 mph more airspeed at SL. It is obvious that the H-1 had tremendous potential for airspeed performance.
5) I suspect almost all flight test data is with some smoothed out aerodynamics including taping off gaps, polishing paint, etc. Nothing new here.
6) Potential for long range missions for the H-1 was very good. The extended wing version flew non-stop 2490 miles and averaged a ground speed of 327 mph. While this is ground speed and thus impacted by wind, it does show the plane was still very fast with extended wings and max fuel. This was probably flown max normal power settings which would have been less than 700 hp.
7) As for the cockpit, I doubt it was significantly smaller than either the Spitfire K5054 or the Bf-109V-1. None were much bigger than a man's head.
8 Of the aircraft noted here, it appears that the H-1 is the cleanest of the three. Aero cleanliness is not a function of size; otherwise wind tunnel models would be useless. Of course drag is a function of size so, if the H-1 did increase in size, performance would be affect. But, I would argue that to put in a PW 1830 radial would be a minor impact to frontal area relative to the 20% plus horsepower gain. Now if it was upscaled to handle the future PW2800 with the same aero concepts, there would have been significant impact, but with 2000 hp on tap, the AAF could have had a Fw-190 or, better yet, a F8F early in the war. And maybe a long range version.

I feel there is no reason to believe that the H-1 did not have as much or more potential as the prototype Spitfire and Bf-109. Of course, the Army would have eventually hamstrung the program by prejudice like not developing adequate engine mounted superchargers. In any event, I believe Hughes, using the aero concepts used on the H-1, could have produced a world class, and possibly superior, fighter in 1937 with great potential for WWII (but that high altitude supercharger would have been needed).

 

[davebender]

Building airstrips for USAAF B-29' was actually a far more meaningful contribution.

I don't think so. Heavy bombers have huge logistical requirements. Once Japan closed the Port of Haiphong the Chinese no longer had a rail connection to a seaport. How are you going to supply a B-29 group with fuel and bombs?

Without a proper supply line you may as well forego the use of combat aircraft. The trickle of supply tonnage that arrives by air and via the Burma Road should be used for small arms ammunition and medical supplies to keep the infantry fighting.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I don't think there is any justification for this. Below is a comparison of three one-off designs, the Hughes H-1, Spitfire K5059, and Bf-109V-1

First Flight
H-1 Sept., 1935
K5059 March 1936
V-1 Sept, 1935

Weight (lbs) Empty, Max
H-1 3565, 5492
K5059 4082, 5359
V-1 3522, 5062

Wing Span (ft)
H-1 24' (31'9" H-1 long range)
K5059 36'10"
V-1 32'4"

Length
H-1 27'
K5059 29'11"
V-1 28'1"

Horsepower
H-1 700 nominal 1000 momentary
K5059 990
V-1 695

Max Airspeed
H-1 353 SL (short wing version)
K5059 349 at 16.8 kft
V-1 292 at 13 kft

It is apparent that the Hughes H-1, Spitfire K5059, and Bf-109V-1 were all very similar in weight, size, and power. All were modern, retracting gear, monoplane configuration aircraft of very clean aerodynamic design.

There is no reason to believe that Howard Hughes would not be able to build a fighter equivalent to the Bf-109 or Spitfire:
1) It is unreasonable to believe that Hughes had not considered a fighter version when he built the H-1. The configuration was quite conventional. It was readily adaptable to extended wing and was still quite fast. He was disappointed that the AAF did not follow up, although personalities were the main reason.
2) It is unknown what stress levels the H-1 was designed to but it is unreasonable to believe that Hughes could not build an aircraft stressed for combat within the parameters of the Bf-109 or Spitfire. The prototype K5054 had no armor or armament, I suspect that neither did the V-1. So the impact to the H-1 would have been no greater than upgrading the other two.
3) Upgrading to the PW-1830 would not be significant. Radial increase would only be 2" and weight gain was less than 200 lbs, hp stress was only 200hp. Upgrading the Bf-109V-1 from the Kestrel to the DB600 required an engine increase of 300 lbs and a hp stress increase of 300 hp. Of course, I am sure both were designed to handle more power and some weight.
4) The 353 mph at SL airspeed record set by the H-1 is very fast. It is as fast as the Spitfire V or Bf-109E-1 at any altitude, and is as fast at SL as a Spitfire IX pulling 25lb boost (80" Hg)! While these aircraft are indeed much heavier, weight has little impact to SL speed. The SL speed of the P-51D at 8k lbs is 369 mph and with 50% more weight at 12000 lbs, the SL airspeed is only 5 mph less at 364 mph. It attest to the clean aerodynamic features of the H-1 that the P-51D, an acclaimed clean aircraft, with 50% more power was only able to obtain 16 mph more airspeed at SL. It is obvious that the H-1 had tremendous potential for airspeed performance.
5) I suspect almost all flight test data is with some smoothed out aerodynamics including taping off gaps, polishing paint, etc. Nothing new here.
6) Potential for long range missions for the H-1 was very good. The extended wing version flew non-stop 2490 miles and averaged a ground speed of 327 mph. While this is ground speed and thus impacted by wind, it does show the plane was still very fast with extended wings and max fuel. This was probably flown max normal power settings which would have been less than 700 hp.
7) As for the cockpit, I doubt it was significantly smaller than either the Spitfire K5054 or the Bf-109V-1. None were much bigger than a man's head.
8 Of the aircraft noted here, it appears that the H-1 is the cleanest of the three. Aero cleanliness is not a function of size; otherwise wind tunnel models would be useless. Of course drag is a function of size so, if the H-1 did increase in size, performance would be affect. But, I would argue that to put in a PW 1830 radial would be a minor impact to frontal area relative to the 20% plus horsepower gain. Now if it was upscaled to handle the future PW2800 with the same aero concepts, there would have been significant impact, but with 2000 hp on tap, the AAF could have had a Fw-190 or, better yet, a F8F early in the war. And maybe a long range version.

I feel there is no reason to believe that the H-1 did not have as much or more potential as the prototype Spitfire and Bf-109. Of course, the Army would have eventually hamstrung the program by prejudice like not developing adequate engine mounted superchargers. In any event, I believe Hughes, using the aero concepts used on the H-1, could have produced a world class, and possibly superior, fighter in 1937 with great potential for WWII (but that high altitude supercharger would have been needed).

I have a new favorite crazy idea then.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... don't think so. Heavy bombers have huge logistical requirements. Once Japan closed the Port of Haiphong the Chinese no longer had a rail connection to a seaport. How are you going to supply a B-29 group with fuel and bombs?"

While Chinese bases weren't as effective as Pacific Islands, DaveBender, the Chinese nonetheless built airstrips that B-29's used. That is a FACT. All I said was that that effort made more sense than cheap fighters for China. I never advocated that Chinese B-29 bases be used as an alternative stategy to Tinian etc. etc.

The "shuttle" bomber runs in Europe that used the USSR as a turnaround point weren't logistically ideal either ... but are also FACT.

MM

 

[Shortround6]

I don't think there is any justification for this. Below is a comparison of three one-off designs, the Hughes H-1, Spitfire K5059, and Bf-109V-1

I feel there is no reason to believe that the H-1 did not have as much or more potential as the prototype Spitfire and Bf-109. Of course, the Army would have eventually hamstrung the program by prejudice like not developing adequate engine mounted superchargers. In any event, I believe Hughes, using the aero concepts used on the H-1, could have produced a world class, and possibly superior, fighter in 1937 with great potential for WWII (but that high altitude supercharger would have been needed).

"It is apparent that the Hughes H-1, Spitfire K5059, and Bf-109V-1 were all very similar in weight, size, and power. All were modern, retracting gear, monoplane configuration aircraft of very clean aerodynamic design. "

only at first glance. THe Hughes also had a wooden wing. I will take your points one at a time.

1. No real facts here. Hughes might have considered a fighter version but without any documentation it is pure speculation. THE comment on Wiki "I tried to sell that airplane to the Army but they turned it down because at that time the Army did not think a cantilever monoplane was proper for a pursuit ship..." doesn't seem to hold up well when you consider that the Army placed an order for 50 P30s with cantilever monoplane wings 9 months before the H-1 first flew, by the way, they also had turbochargers. Prototype Seversky P-35 also flew a few weeks before the H-1.

2. True, it is unknown what the stress or load limits the H-1 was designed for but we do know what the others were designed for and we also know that standard US fighter (or pursuit ) requirements were for 8-8.5 Gs standard with about 12 Gs ultimate. WE also know that there was a design study concerning turning the Wedell-Williams 44 racer into a fighter just a few years before, see P-34. It was judged as not worthwhile. Your arguement about the armament rings a little hollow. While niether fighter protoype may have actually carried armament, both designers new it would be required and planned accordingly. THey were NOT upgraded later to be something they were not designed to be.

3. Really? not significant? Your 2" of radial increase is 4 in of diameter on on these engines means an increase from 10.61 to 12.56 sq/ft of frontal area. Your weight seems a little off too. more like a 300lb difference, at least for the versions listed in the 1938 "Jane's" and that is dry weight. It also doesn't include the larger cowling, engine mounts or propeller. Just how long did the H-1 stand up to the 1000hp rating? A few minutes on the speed record run and never again in it's life?

4. Yes the H-1 was very fast. it was also a lot smaller than a quick glance at the listed dimensions might lead one to believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HughesH1racer.JPG
http://collections.nasm.si.edu/media/full/A19750840000CP03.jpg
http://www.popularaviation.com/PhotoGallery/1528.jpg
http://www.popularaviation.com/PhotoGallery/1590.JPG

5. Flight test data, if the company is honest, will be done without resorting to such tricks. Some military contracts call for penalties if production aircraft fail to meet specification or performance guarantees. CUtiss lost over $14,000 because the XP-46 wouldn't do what it was supposed to.

6. Yep, tail winds help. Didn't a Hurricane post an over 400mph flight with the aid of a tail wind? It is also amazing what you can do with very large fuel tanks. Endurance of one model of the Wildcat was supposed to be over 24hrs but that version wasn't a very good fighter.

7. I have no idea how big the cockpit was on the H-1 but from the photos I would guess that a militay customer would not have OKed that canopy and the vision from it on a production plane. Defelction shooting might have been just a trifle difficult too. Taller canopy=more drag.

8. The H-1 may very well have been the cleanest. I think your arguement about frontal area vrs HP isn't doing too well though. And you have a host of problems with weight.

I am not sure the long wing span goes with the 138 sq ft wing area in the specs. Dividing 31'9" into 138 would give you an average cord of about 4 1/3 ft. the wings sure don't look that narrow.

What ever the real wing area the Gross weight of the H-1 is within a couple of hundred pounds of the Brewster 239 as is it's empty weight. Once you add in the guns,ammo, radios and other military fiddly bits the Brewster had a fuel capacity of about 660lbs, The max fuel load of 160 gallons could only be carried by leaving the wing guns and ammo behind.

THe Replica H-1 lifted off at about 105mph. I am afraid the wing loading and stall speeds of the H-1 might have been a bit much for the Army to swallow in the late 30s. increasing wing size to get lower wing loading increases structual weight and increases drag. There were several ohter modifications the H-1 might have nedded to become a passable fighter. None of which are going to do much for weight. And while weight doesn't do a lot to speed it sure does affect climb.

 

[tomo pauk]

The spiritual battle-worthy copy (or 'copy') of the H-1 was the IAR-80, Romanian fighter. With under 1000 HP, 4 LMGs and almost no armor it could clock some 530 km/h. So, the Brewster Buffalo was at least as good, being available almost 2 years before.
The IAR-80A version was even slower (under 520 km/h) despite some extra 50 HP, but it featured an extra pair of guns and substantial armor protection.

If we want a fast, well armed and non-expensive early war fighter for the USAAC, the original P-39 ( XP-39?) with decent supercharger was the way to go.

 

[davparlr]

only at first glance. THe Hughes also had a wooden wing. I will take your points one at a time.

Wooden wings were a maintenance issue, not a performance issue. Some WWII aircraft with wooden or proposed wooden wings, Mosquito, of course, He 162, and Go 229, and, I'll bet there were others. In any event, the H-1 was obviously designed for wing changes and aluminum wings were not rocket science in 1935.

Correction of error. In my previous comment I referred to the Spitfire K5059 when it should have been K5054.

1. No real facts here. Hughes might have considered a fighter version but without any documentation it is pure speculation. THE comment on Wiki "I tried to sell that airplane to the Army but they turned it down because at that time the Army did not think a cantilever monoplane was proper for a pursuit ship..." doesn't seem to hold up well when you consider that the Army placed an order for 50 P30s with cantilever monoplane wings 9 months before the H-1 first flew, by the way, they also had turbochargers. Prototype Seversky P-35 also flew a few weeks before the H-1.

I don't know about the quote, maybe it was made earlier when it was just a study by Hughes or just not true. However, the Army was certainly interested after his record breaking trans-continental flight in '37 only to be miffed at Hughes missing of a planned meeting. The Army really liked the turbo-superchargers for high altitude work, which hampered development of high altitude engine mounted superchargers. This in turn required the bulk of a P-47 and prevented the more lean designs of planes like the H-1 ( and the Navy F4U, which did not have good high altitude performance until the F4U-4).

The P-35 was about 1000 lbs heavier than the H-1 Racer and 600 lbs heavier than the extended wing version and was not in the aerodynamic league of the H-1.

I don't think the P-35 had a turbo-supercharger, did you mean supercharger (maybe semantics)?

2. True, it is unknown what the stress or load limits the H-1 was designed for but we do know what the others were designed for and we also know that standard US fighter (or pursuit ) requirements were for 8-8.5 Gs standard with about 12 Gs ultimate. WE also know that there was a design study concerning turning the Wedell-Williams 44 racer into a fighter just a few years before, see P-34. It was judged as not worthwhile. Your arguement about the armament rings a little hollow. While niether fighter protoype may have actually carried armament, both designers new it would be required and planned accordingly. THey were NOT upgraded later to be something they were not designed to be.

I don't have much of an argument here except comparing one racer to another is risky. There are a lot of variables, aero qualities including stability (some racers were dangerous), talent of designers, etc. I happen to think that Howard Hughes was quirky but a genius. There is no doubt that the H-1 looks right and there appears no reports of difficultly in flying, neither the original or the reconstruction, in fact, it is reported that Wright, the builder of the H-1 replica, considered it the best flying aircraft he had ever flown. And certainly the superb aerodynamics could be effectively carried over to a fighter design.

3. Really? not significant? Your 2" of radial increase is 4 in of diameter on on these engines means an increase from 10.61 to 12.56 sq/ft of frontal area. Your weight seems a little off too. more like a 300lb difference, at least for the versions listed in the 1938 "Jane's" and that is dry weight. It also doesn't include the larger cowling, engine mounts or propeller. Just how long did the H-1 stand up to the 1000hp rating? A few minutes on the speed record run and never again in it's life?

Well, I won't say insignificant, but still the increase of power from a rated 700 hp to a rated 1000 to 1200hp (an increase of thrust of 43% to 70%), would more than make up for the 18% increase in form drag.
P&W list weight of the R-1830 as 1,162 to 1467 lbs. Wikipedia states that the weight of the R-1535 as 1087 lbs so weight can go from 75 lb increase to 380 lbs. Roll a dice, mine came up less than 200 lbs, yours came up greater than 300.

It is unknown how much modifications were made or if the engine was destroyed during the test run. In any event, it would have been replaced, most likely by the R-1830.

4. Yes the H-1 was very fast. it was also a lot smaller than a quick glance at the listed dimensions might lead one to believe.

I think that dimensional measurements are the accepted method of comparing aircraft. While I do think the Spitfire was a bit bigger, I think the Bf-109 and the H-1 were very close in size. If you compare the fuselage thickness of the Bf -109 at the leading edge of the wing to the height of the worker, and then do the same for the H-1, it is apparent that these aircraft are quite similar in size.

Google Image Result for http://pagesperso-orange.fr/christophe.arribat/stof109.jpg

Hughes H-1

http://www.airminded.net/h1/h2b_6oc.jpg


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alemarinel/Spitfire/K5054.jpg

5. Flight test data, if the company is honest, will be done without resorting to such tricks. Some military contracts call for penalties if production aircraft fail to meet specification or performance guarantees. CUtiss lost over $14,000 because the XP-46 wouldn't do what it was supposed to.

Even in military test, gun ports are often taped over and gaps filled and possible polishing of the aircraft, etc. These modifications are not rare for tests. I have no doubt that the Spitfire 5054 or Bf-109V-1 was quite pampered when first tested.

6. Yep, tail winds help. Didn't a Hurricane post an over 400mph flight with the aid of a tail wind? It is also amazing what you can do with very large fuel tanks. Endurance of one model of the Wildcat was supposed to be over 24hrs but that version wasn't a very good fighter.

It is highly likely that the H-1 flew the route at low altitude, below 10k, and it is unlikely the delta tail wind (reasonable since it was flying West to East) was more than 20-30 mph, which would still made the H-1 average a higher airspeed over 2740 miles than the Bf-109V-1 max.

7. I have no idea how big the cockpit was on the H-1 but from the photos I would guess that a militay customer would not have OKed that canopy and the vision from it on a production plane. Defelction shooting might have been just a trifle difficult too. Taller canopy=more drag.

Probably, but that Bf-109 cockpit sure wasn't anything to write home about and they did not change it till late in the war. The change from the P-51B conformal cockpit to the bubble cockpit of the P-51D only affected the SL airspeed by about 3-5 mph. With half the power but similar speeds this would have impacted the H-1 about 6-10 mph, if it had used a bubble canopy, which it would not have done. I would estimate an impact of 5 mph for a cockpit at least as useful as the Bf-109V-1 or even the Spitfire 5054.

Continued.....

 

[davparlr]

8. The H-1 may very well have been the cleanest. I think your arguement about frontal area vrs HP isn't doing too well though. And you have a host of problems with weight.

I disagree. I think the added drag and weight is overcome by the added and potential rated power. I don't think weight growth would be much more severe than the Spit or Bf, indeed, the Mark I was nearly 800 lbs more than the K5054 and the Bf-109E was well over 1000 lbs more than the V-1.

I am not sure the long wing span goes with the 138 sq ft wing area in the specs. Dividing 31'9" into 138 would give you an average cord of about 4 1/3 ft. the wings sure don't look that narrow.

I can't add much here. It appears that the short wing has a MAC of 6'. If you extend the wings out at the same angle 3' each, perhaps the MAC reduces to 4.3 ft. I really don't know what the long wings look like other than some models.

What ever the real wing area the Gross weight of the H-1 is within a couple of hundred pounds of the Brewster 239 as is it's empty weight. Once you add in the guns,ammo, radios and other military fiddly bits the Brewster had a fuel capacity of about 660lbs, The max fuel load of 160 gallons could only be carried by leaving the wing guns and ammo behind.

That's worse than comparing the Spitfire to the Hurricane. The Mark I Hurricane was lighter than the Mark I Spitfire, but they were not in the same league in performance.

Again, the Brewster is not in the same aerodynamic league as the H-1. The F2A-1, at less weight and equal power was probably 70 mph slower at SL than the extended wing H-1. I'll talk about weight later.

THe Replica H-1 lifted off at about 105mph. I am afraid the wing loading and stall speeds of the H-1 might have been a bit much for the Army to swallow in the late 30s. increasing wing size to get lower wing loading increases structual weight and increases drag. There were several ohter modifications the H-1 might have nedded to become a passable fighter. None of which are going to do much for weight. And while weight doesn't do a lot to speed it sure does affect climb.

No objections here. I think the extended wing H-1 would have been the aircraft of choice. However climb rate would be difficult to estimate, not much data.

Here's my what-if, Howard Hughes, after his record setting low altitude run in 1935 is instructed by the AAC to develop a fighter version of the H-1 for 1937. Here is the configuration he delivered in 1937.

H-1 Racer with the following modifications
1) Extended wings
2) Slightly raised cockpit
3) P-40 level armament, two .30s, two .50s, wing mounted
4) P-40 level armor
5) 100 gal combat fuel, 50 extended range fuel, all fuselage mounted.
6) P&W 1830-45 rated at 1050 hp. is used. Fuselage is widened to accommodate larger engine.
7) Standard radio

Weight 4600 lbs empty, combat weight 5762 lbs, 6062 lb gross. This is roughly equivalent to the P-35/36 weight.

Performance. This is a bit difficult as the only verifiable airspeed is the 352 mph at SL for the H-1 at 1000 hp. However, there is some hocus pocus that can be done on a modified 1937 aircraft here. Extended wings offer a more difficult challenge. The SL speed of the P-47N with a 2 ft greater wing span than the M, was negligibly slower at SL (1 mph) than the M, with the same engine. The Ta152H with a wingspan 12' longer than the Ta-152C, was 18 mph slower, however, the Ta-152C seems to have had a much more powerful engine, 400 hp more. Not much help here. Induced drag is reduced by wing span as form drag increases.

H-1 SL airspeed at 1000 hp, tested 352 mph
Install P&W R-1830 (1000 hp), increasing form area by 1.95 sqft and weight by 200 lbs (?).
Airspeed 328 mph SL (weight impact on airspeed negligible) (drag formulas)

Increase structural strength, add weapons, armor, add radio, avionics, negligible airspeed impact
Air speed 324 mph SL (P-51D comparisons). Weight 360 lbs

Modify canopy
Airspeed 319 mph SL (P-51B to D comparison)

Add extended wings
Airspeed 310 mph SL (guess) weight 500 lbs

1937

Hughes H-1 fighter
HP 1000 (R-1830)
Empty weight 4625 lb
Combat weight weight 5687
Gross weight 6200 lbs
Max A/S 310 mph at SL
Max A/S 348 mph at 17k ft.*


1939 US Fighter competition

Hughes H-1 Fighter
HP1200 (R-1830-76)
Empty weight 4725 lbs (engine weight (?))
Combat weight 5787 lbs
Gross weight 6200 lbs
Max A/S 333 mph at SL
Max A/S 374 mph at 22k ft.**

* Estimate based on F2A airspeed profile (for supercharger performance)
** Estimate based on F4F-3 (R-1830-76 engine) airspeed profile (for supercharger performance)

I think a militarized H-1 racer in 1939 could have been more than competitive with the Spitfire Mark I (empty weight 4810lbs, max speed 362 at 18,500 ft) and the Bf-109E (empty weight 4422lb, max speed 354 mph at 12,300 ft.). However, I have no information on climb, but with a wing area between the Spit and Bf, and good power to weight ratio, it should have been competitive.

I arrived at these numbers by using a black cauldron of bubbling goo, threw in a handful of drag equations, a pinch of spitfireperformance comparisons, stirred in a batch of eyeballing performance data, mumbling nonsensical words, throwing the whole batch onto my office floor and reading the remains. I am still cleaning up the mess.

However, I do believe that, in 1935-6, H-1 racer had no less potential than the Spitfire 5054 or the Bf-109V-1. Its performance advantage gave plenty of growth. The Spit seemed most mature at first flight.

I'll let the H-1 replica speak for itself.