If the Hughes H-1 would have been made into a fighter...

GregP · Oct 7, 2024

I think Shortround is right for the original racer as designed. It could have easily been redesigned to be a fighter The main issue was likely wings, and it already had 2 sets of wings. Making them stronger and of such volume as to hold guns would not have been too difficult, and the fuselage could easily have been strengthened. Fit a fighter canopy to it and use a suitable engine and propeller and you could have done it.

The ensuing aircraft would NOT have looked much like a Hughes H-1 racer, but more like an Fw 190 with more wing area. Since it was going to be considerably different anyway, why not simply start with a clean sheet and design a fighter using what you knew about the H-1 racer? To me, it looks like the Corsair is just that, with the added complexity of the inverted gull wing to make the landing gear shorter.

BobB · Oct 7, 2024

The Hughes H-1 would have made a great fighter if it had a new wing, fuselage, landing gear and empennage. A switch to a different engine would also be desirable since the R-1535 became a dead end.

_PabloSniper_ · Oct 11, 2024

BobB said:
The Hughes H-1 would have made a great fighter if it had a new wing, fuselage, landing gear and empennage. A switch to a different engine would also be desirable since the R-1535 became a dead end.

The version with larger wings, which was used to cross the United States. It used a 285-gallon fuel tank, high-altitude oxygen, and radio equipment. For comparison, a Bearcat had a smaller capacity of less than 180 gallons. If the fuel tank were reduced, it would be perfectly possible to use an R-1830, a light machine gun, and an M-2 .50 on top of the engine (which was standard at the time). All that was needed was to add a pair of shock absorbers to the landing gear, and a 10mm plate behind the pilot. France has an example of a racing plane that became a fighter. We can't rewrite history, but I'm convinced it would be possible.
Just to remind you, North American Aviation transformed a T-6 Texan, a trainer, into a fighter.

GregP · Oct 11, 2024

_PabloSniper_ said:
The version with larger wings, which was used to cross the United States. It used a 285-gallon fuel tank, high-altitude oxygen, and radio equipment. For comparison, a Bearcat had a smaller capacity of less than 180 gallons. If the fuel tank were reduced, it would be perfectly possible to use an R-1830, a light machine gun, and an M-2 .50 on top of the engine (which was standard at the time). All that was needed was to add a pair of shock absorbers to the landing gear, and a 10mm plate behind the pilot. France has an example of a racing plane that became a fighter. We can't rewrite history, but I'm convinced it would be possible.
Just to remind you, North American Aviation transformed a T-6 Texan, a trainer, into a fighter.

Here's a conversion to quasi-P-64. Looks like it still has 2 seats.

_PabloSniper_ · Oct 11, 2024

GregP said:
Here's a conversion to quasi-P-64. Looks like it still has 2 seats.

This is not an original version.
The two versions he had were these.

This one, which was sold to Peru, and which even saw combat in a small war fought here in South America.

And this one was going to be sold to Thailand, but the sale was cancelled, and they ended up being destined for advanced trainers in the US Air Force.
Note that it has smaller wings than the T-6.
But that's a topic for another thread.

wuzak · Oct 11, 2024

The H-1 design was used as a fighter according to Hughes - the Mitsubishi A6M.

_PabloSniper_ · Oct 11, 2024

wuzak said:
The H-1 design was used as a fighter according to Hughes - the Mitsubishi A6M.

Regardless of whether this statement is true or false, the fact is that it was the fastest in 1935. Just look at the speeds reached by the P-36, P-35, Hurricane, and BF-109. Even though they were all unarmed and unarmored, they were slower than the H-1.
Not to mention that one of those mentioned for the 1935 fighter competition was the XP-34, which was exactly a racer adapted for combat.

wuzak · Oct 12, 2024

_PabloSniper_ said:
Regardless of whether this statement is true or false, the fact is that it was the fastest in 1935. Just look at the speeds reached by the P-36, P-35, Hurricane, and BF-109. Even though they were all unarmed and unarmored, they were slower than the H-1.
Not to mention that one of those mentioned for the 1935 fighter competition was the XP-34, which was exactly a racer adapted for combat.

Except for the seaplanes that had set the speed records in previous years, with the MC.72 being 90mph faster.

_PabloSniper_ · Oct 12, 2024

wuzak said:
Except for the seaplanes that had set the speed records in previous years, with the MC.72 being 90mph faster.

Ok, do you want to compare an engine that is fully tuned to extract maximum power, and has a short lifespan and absurd fuel consumption, with a standard R-1830, which would be the most obvious choice for the H-1?
The H-1 crossed the United States with the R-1535 at over 330 MPH average.
An MC-72 does not cross the state of Texas.

GregP · Oct 12, 2024

The M.C 72 barely crosses the Mbwebwe River, located in Mbwebwe province, near the village of Mbwebwe.

ThomasP · Oct 12, 2024

Why would anyone think the A6M was based on the H-1? The main wing planform (both long-wing and short-wing version) is different, the airfoil sections are different, the horizontal tail planform is different, the vertical tail planform is different, and the fuselage shape is different. The only way anyone could say the A6M is based on the H-1 is if the claim was based on it being a radial engined monoplane.

_PabloSniper_ · Oct 12, 2024

ThomasP said:
Why would anyone think the A6M was based on the H-1? The main wing planform (both long-wing and short-wing version) is different, the airfoil sections are different, the horizontal tail planform is different, the vertical tail planform is different, and the fuselage shape is different. The only way anyone could say the A6M is based on the H-1 is if the claim was based on it being a radial engined monoplane.

So, of all the arguments against or in favor of H-1, this is the one that matters least.

ThomasP · Oct 12, 2024

re

_PabloSniper_ said:
So, of all the arguments against or in favor of H-1, this is the one that matters least.

??

_PabloSniper_ · Oct 12, 2024

ThomasP said:
re

??

I'm brazilian, and I use Google Translate, sometimes it gets in my way.

ThomasP · Oct 12, 2024

rogério, entendeu

GregP · Oct 12, 2024

_PabloSniper_ said:
I'm brazilian, and I use Google Translate, sometimes it gets in my way.

Your English is better than my Postuguese.

Thumpalumpacus · Oct 12, 2024

ThomasP said:
Why would anyone think the A6M was based on the H-1? The main wing planform (both long-wing and short-wing version) is different, the airfoil sections are different, the horizontal tail planform is different, the vertical tail planform is different, and the fuselage shape is different. The only way anyone could say the A6M is based on the H-1 is if the claim was based on it being a radial engined monoplane.

I'd be willing to bet Hughes made the claim in order to grab the credit and sell USAAF on his further projects.

Shortround6 · Oct 12, 2024

_PabloSniper_ said:
The version with larger wings, which was used to cross the United States. It used a 285-gallon fuel tank, high-altitude oxygen, and radio equipment. For comparison, a Bearcat had a smaller capacity of less than 180 gallons. If the fuel tank were reduced, it would be perfectly possible to use an R-1830, a light machine gun, and an M-2 .50 on top of the engine (which was standard at the time). All that was needed was to add a pair of shock absorbers to the landing gear, and a 10mm plate behind the pilot. France has an example of a racing plane that became a fighter. We can't rewrite history, but I'm convinced it would be possible.

No.

It is a 14 cylinder engine, the guns have to over the engine which means the fuselage has to be fatter/thicker. Which means the already poor forward visibility gets a lot worse, which means you have to raise the canopy. Guns are going to be somewhere over the wing with long blast tubes to go over the engines. Ammo is going to cut into space for the fuel tanks.
Maybe you can stick them in the wings?
You already have a rather high wing loading.
The larger, heavier R-1830 engine (1450-1500lbs) is substantially heavier than the R-1535 engine and you need a heavier propeller and..............and..................and................

Vought V-143 using an R-1525 engine, Max speed just over 290mph, using two .30 cal guns.
Also used a wing 187sq ft for a weight of 4370lbs (?).

Using a lightly built racing plane for combat plane is not going to work well. A tight fighter turn is going to put you in the structural failure area. Race planes are not intended to to turn at even 4 Gs.
The US was looking at a limit load factor of 8.5 Gs in the early 30s (1933?). The Wedell-Williams 44 Data forwarded to Wright field showed a limit of 5.43 with a safety factor of 1.5 for a design load factor of 8.15. The Pursuit requirement would have called for 12.75

As an illustration of changing a race plane to a fighter we can look at the Hawks Miller HM-1

and the rebuilt MA-1

marathag · Oct 12, 2024

Shortround6 said:
Guns are going to be somewhere over the wing with long blast tubes to go over the engines

Blast tubes work with radials

Shortround6 · Oct 12, 2024

You can get away with sneaking blast tubes between the cylinders on 9 cylinder single row radials.
Doesn't work with 14cylinder two row engines.

One row blocks the spaces in the other row.

If the Hughes H-1 would have been made into a fighter...

Major

Airman 1st Class

Airman

Major

Airman

Captain

Airman

Captain

Airman

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Major

Major

Major General

Senior Airman

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads