Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

[Zipper730]

It's an intellectual exercise, revolving around how aircraft could have been made better with technology available at the time around either

1. The existing specification: Basically, the idea would be working within the existing specification, but you could modify or change anything within the boundary of it.
2. A different winner: Sometimes the problem wasn't the design so much as the winner to the contender: While way after WWII, many feel the YF-23 should have won over the YF-22, for example.
3. A more realistic/practical specification: Basically the specifications are made more realistic to allow a practical design to be developed, an example would be the He-177 having 4 x DB-601's instead of 2 x DB-606's, or simply not being designed as a dive-bomber.

I would assume that the changes could include differences in aerodynamics, in installation of existing equipment, in propulsion system where applicable and allowable. I guess conceptual designs that didn't fly could also be included.

To start off: Aircraft that I could imagine huge improvements within the existing specification would be

• Y1P-37: The engine and turbocharger arrangement seemed okay, the problem was that the radiator and intercooler system producing an airplane that had the cockpit so far back taxiing would be a royal pain in the butt, and aerial combat could be disastrous.
• He-177: The basic design was fundamentally solid and, had it simply had 4 x DB601's instead of 2 x DB606's, or just not been built around dive-bombing specifications, it'd be fine.
• XP-61E: Either with an R-2800 used on the F4U-4 or a turbocharged variant would have put the plane's speed high enough to be a formidable fighter.

There are probably many others.

 

[swampyankee]

P-61A:

Eliminate the gunner and the turret. Put the pilot and radar operator under a tandem canopy, that is jump right to the P-61E configuration. Getting rid of the turret and gunner would probably save close to a ton in empty weight, twenty percent in zero-lift drag, and months in development

 

[Greg Boeser]

B-26 Marauder
*Go with the longer wing right from the start.
Fowler flaps.
*Redesign the bomb bay doors to eliminate drag. (Folding doors caused massive drag when open, reducing top speed by 25 mph.) Roll up doors like on B-24 were suggested, but never implemented.
Redesign bomb bay with capacity for tandem racks, thus eliminating need for second bomb bay. I was shocked at how much space was wasted when carrying smaller bombs.
*Move turret forward to improve CG.
Add RADAR.

*indicates a proposal that was not implemented

 

[wuzak]

This is loking a lot like an earlier thread

This is the way it should have been from the beginning....

 

[Zipper730]

P-61A: Eliminate the gunner and the turret. Put the pilot and radar operator under a tandem canopy, that is jump right to the P-61E configuration. Getting rid of the turret and gunner would probably save close to a ton in empty weight, twenty percent in zero-lift drag, and months in development

I agree with the idea. I'm curious why the British were so obsessed with the idea.

I get the basic concept: Schrage Music with Options -- you could rake 'em from below if you couldn't get above them. The fact is that powered turrets (remote controlled or directly manned) take up weight and impose a drag penalty that you'd be best without. Admittedly, I was told the P-61 only gained a few miles an hour with the turret removed, but with the structure totally reconfigured more like the XP-61E, I could easily see the performance figures going up.

If drag also lowers, so too will climb-rate...

One thing that I remember being rather interesting with the P-61 was a desire for an 8 hour endurance, so as to loiter over a city all night long. Some say the idea came from General Emmons, others say it came from either Northrop himself or Vladimir Pavlecka. I'm curious if that was even possible.

This is loking a lot like an earlier thread

This is the way it should have been from the beginning....

I actually forgot about that thread. Since this thread doesn't seem to have much activity for the past year (almost exactly, actually), I'm curious if it would be best to amalgamate these two threads, or just let this thread run in lieu of the older one?

 

[Shortround6]

B-26 Marauder
*Go with the longer wing right from the start.
Fowler flaps.
*Redesign the bomb bay doors to eliminate drag. (Folding doors caused massive drag when open, reducing top speed by 25 mph.) Roll up doors like on B-24 were suggested, but never implemented.
Redesign bomb bay with capacity for tandem racks, thus eliminating need for second bomb bay. I was shocked at how much space was wasted when carrying smaller bombs.
*Move turret forward to improve CG.
Add RADAR.

*indicates a proposal that was not implemented

Very few bombers could carry the same weight of "small" bombs as large ones. Small being under 250lbs. even an He 111 dropped from 4400lbs carrying eight 250kg bombs to 3520lbs carrying thirty two 50kg bombs and they managed to stuff four 50kg bombs in each 250kg bomb cell.

Hanging them on individual racks really sucks up room. In part due to the needs of hoisting bombs into position and the needs of the armorers to work around the bombs fitting fuses and safety wires.

AIrplanes have two CG or perhaps weight distribution problems is a better way of saying it. The first is flying and most of us are familiar with that. The second is landing and/or ground handling. Once a number of planes were modified with extra armament or operational equipment they managed to keep the flying CG pretty much in place but the ever increasing loads often strained the landing gear or made ground handling difficult. Pilots manual for even the B-25C/D prohibits pivot turns, notes that on soft surfaces the nose wheel can dig in a reverse itself (turn 180 degrees) if the tire sinks more than 2 inches into the soil. It suggests having a crew man walk in front of the plane monitoring the wheel if the ground is soft.

On some planes it was a trade off between more effective armament (or more effective placement) and increase ground accidents/ even if repairable.

On the B-26 they added tons of equipment/consumables to the original design. Moving the turret forward (to behind the pilots? ) would seem doable, but they were adding a single fixed .50 in the nose and the four cheek guns, Perhaps they needed the turret to stay where it was?
Of course they added more/bigger lower waist guns and an extra crewman? so perhaps moving the turret would help with that? B-26 went through a lot of weight shifts.

 

[GrauGeist]

With any german bomber (He177 included), eliminate the requirement for dive-bombing.
They had the Hs123, Ju87 and Hs132 for dedicated dive-bombing (although the Hs132 didn't have time to go operational) as well as the Fw190F for that role. The Ju88 would be the exception to the rule, as it did well in that capacity.

The RLM's obsession with dive-bombing cost a great deal of time and effort for such little return.

 

[wuzak]

I can't remember if the He 177 was originally proposed and designed without provision for dive bombing, but the requirement for dive bombing was added later causing delays and structural issues.

 

[GrauGeist]

I can't remember if the He 177 was originally proposed and designed without provision for dive bombing, but the requirement for dive bombing was added later causing delays and structural issues.

It was not part of the original design and when the RLM insisted on it being capable, it caused a great deal of lost time and energy trying to make it capable. The Do217 was also made dive-bomb capable during the "E" variant production. Other bombers with the requirement: Fw191 and Ju188.

The obsession was not just limited to bombers, however, they pulled that stunt on several promising heavy fighter types like the Ar240, too.

 

[Zipper730]

With any german bomber (He177 included), eliminate the requirement for dive-bombing.
They had the Hs123, Ju87 and Hs132 for dedicated dive-bombing (although the Hs132 didn't have time to go operational) as well as the Fw190F for that role. The Ju88 would be the exception to the rule, as it did well in that capacity.

Agreed

I can't remember if the He 177 was originally proposed and designed without provision for dive bombing, but the requirement for dive bombing was added later causing delays and structural issues.

From what I remember, the He-177 was designed originally for the ability to perform low to moderate angle dive-bombing, and after the Spanish Civil War, the requirement was changed to a 60-degree dive-capability.

I'm not sure what low/moderate angle diving attacks mean, but if dive-bombing is over 60-degrees, and low was 0-30, and medium was 30-60, I wouldn't be surprised if 30-45 would be about what they were looking for. It was ambitious enough.

 

[GrauGeist]

The He177 was purely conceived as a strategic heavy bomber in answer to the RLM's "Bomber A" program, which would have seen it penetrate into Soviet airspace to strike industrial targets.

 

[PAT303]

I would have liked to have seen the Spit reach it's full potential. The interim models were needed, MkV-IX-XIV but I can't help but think the blooding of the spit in 1941-42 by the likes of the FW190A would not have happened if the MkIII running 2 stage Merlin XX's could have been made.

 

[drgondog]

I would have liked to have seen the Spit reach it's full potential. The interim models were needed, MkV-IX-XIV but I can't help but think the blooding of the spit in 1941-42 by the likes of the FW190A would not have happened if the MkIII running 2 stage Merlin XX's could have been made.

Impossible development cycle, the Merlin 61 was introduced as early as possible and not available in quantity until mid 1943. Early releases for the Spitfire IX were in squadron level in very late 1942. The P-51B could not have been deployed to ETO more than 1-2 months earlier due to the Packard bug fixing, then the Packard strike.

 

[Kevin J]

I would have liked to have seen the Spit reach it's full potential. The interim models were needed, MkV-IX-XIV but I can't help but think the blooding of the spit in 1941-42 by the likes of the FW190A would not have happened if the MkIII running 2 stage Merlin XX's could have been made.

The Merlin 45 was a derivative of the Merlin XX. It had the high altitude but not the low altitude performance. So what's wrong with what was done? Putting the Merlin XX into the Hurricane kept it competitive at all altitudes. It was a rugged fighter that could be deployed across the globe. Its aerial victory statistics back the decision up. The Spitfire was less rugged, scored fewer kills, and was not really deployable on the global scale until the Vc version.

 

[wuzak]

Impossible development cycle, the Merlin 61 was introduced as early as possible and not available in quantity until mid 1943. Early releases for the Spitfire IX were in squadron level in very late 1942. The P-51B could not have been deployed to ETO more than 1-2 months earlier due to the Packard bug fixing, then the Packard strike.

The Spitfire III had the 2 speed Melin XX, not the 2 stage Merlin 61. It also had some airframe improvements, including retracting tail gear, clipped wings and improved radiator ducts. First flight was March 15, 1940. Maximum speed was 400mph @ 21,000ft with the Merlin X. The Merlin X was to be used for initial production aircraft until Merlin XX production was up to speed.

The prototype Mk III was delivered to Rolls-Royce for use as an engine test bed for the Merlin 60 in April 1941, making its first flight on 27 September 1941. Basically it was the prototype for the IX/VIII.

A Spitfire Mk I was delivered for conversion on 13 October 1941 and first flew on 6 January 1942.

Two Mk Vs were delivered to Rolls-Royce on 7 and 12 December 1941, one flying on 26 February 1942 and the other on 27 March 1942.

More Spitfire Vs were delivered as trials aircraft and 100 Spitfire IXs were ordered from Supermarine to be delivered by the end of June 1942.

Supermarine built 52 Spitfire IXs and Rolls-Royce 48.

No.64 squadron was equipped with the Spitfire IX in June 1942, No.611 in July and Nos. 401 and 402 in August. All four squadrons participated in Operation Jubilee, the Dieppe Raid. This was also the first combat operations for the Mustang I.

Note that PAT303 made no mention of the P-51B.

When production of Spitfire IXs started at Castle Bromwich they were fitted with Merlin 63s.

The first Spitfire LF.IX conversion to Merlin 66 by Rolls-Royce was in May 1943. The first HF.IX with Merlin 70 was later in the year (~September).

 

[wuzak]

The Merlin 45 was a derivative of the Merlin XX. It had the high altitude but not the low altitude performance. So what's wrong with what was done? Putting the Merlin XX into the Hurricane kept it competitive at all altitudes. It was a rugged fighter that could be deployed across the globe. Its aerial victory statistics back the decision up. The Spitfire was less rugged, scored fewer kills, and was not really deployable on the global scale until the Vc version.

The Merlin XX had a higher gear for the supercharger in FS gear than the Merlin 45 had for its only gear. Thus it had a higher critical altitude than the 45.

A Merlin XX powered Spitfire would have been more competitive with the Bf 109F-4 and Fw 190A than the Spitfire V was.

The Spitfire was not deployed overseas initially because there weren't enough built that could be used for the home front and deployed overseas. In a shocking decision the Air Ministry/RAF decided to keep Spitfires defending British skies and deployed Hurricanes to what were considered secondary theatres.

The Merlin XX made the Hurricane more competitive, but that's not to say they were truly competitive in the ETO.

And, as I have said before, number of kills speaks more to opportunity than effectiveness.

 

[tomo pauk]

I would have liked to have seen the Spit reach it's full potential. The interim models were needed, MkV-IX-XIV but I can't help but think the blooding of the spit in 1941-42 by the likes of the FW190A would not have happened if the MkIII running 2 stage Merlin XX's could have been made.

Oh, if only Merlin XX was a two stage engine.

The Merlin 45 was a derivative of the Merlin XX. It had the high altitude but not the low altitude performance. So what's wrong with what was done? Putting the Merlin XX into the Hurricane kept it competitive at all altitudes. It was a rugged fighter that could be deployed across the globe. Its aerial victory statistics back the decision up. The Spitfire was less rugged, scored fewer kills, and was not really deployable on the global scale until the Vc version.

It was not about engine, it was about airframe and timing. Merlin 45 was lagging perhaps 7-8 months behind the XX. Spitfire III have had internal BP glass, retractable & covered tail wheel and covered main wheel well, thus it have had less drag. Add that Spitfire V suffered another 10+- mph loss due to lousy fit and finish and there is no wonder it was 3rd best European fighter by late 1941.
Hurricane IIa (8 Brownings) was competitive in 1940, by early 1941 it was not. It was further tamed once 12 Browings were installed (IIb), let alone once 4 cannons were installed (IIc).

With regard to the 'improve that design' as applied to the early Spitfires:
- Spitfire I: 4 Vickers HMG, metal ailerons, double sheet central part of the wing (= more rigid = better roll), metal ailerons, pressure injection carb, better exhausts, at least 2-pitch prop.
- Spitfire II: constant speed prop from day one, drop tank facility, internal BP glass
- Spitfire III: as historically more or less

 

[tomo pauk]

The Merlin XX had a higher gear for the supercharger in FS gear than the Merlin 45 had for its only gear. Thus it had a higher critical altitude than the 45.
...

IIRC the power was within 1-2% above 18000 ft, both managing about 1200 HP there.

 

[tomo pauk]

Random Luftwaffe A/C being better the way I see it:
- Bf 109E: 4 HMGs, drop tank from day one
- Bf 109F: 3 cannons
- Fw 190: DB 601 engine from day one + a drop tank or two; move to DB 605 when available, then on DB 603
- Ju 87: always with a prop cannon
- Ju 88: wings in high/shoulder position so there is a real bomb bay

 

[Shortround6]

revolving around how aircraft could have been made better with technology available at the time around either

Now, does that mean guns that didn't exist (but could be made with existing technology?)
Engines that wouldn't exist for a year or more?

and so on.

The British didn't have a suitable HMG in the late 30s or 1940, perhaps they could have.
The .5in Vickers was large, heavy and suffered from jams even though it rarely actually broke. (How do you define reliability?) it also didn't have a particularly high rate of fire.
Provision of truly effective ammo was a problem, No HE rounds and good incendiaries only came later?

Of course the Germans didn't have a heavy machine gun either in 1939/40. They were working on one but it doesn't really see service until 1941.

Both the Germans and the British advocates in these retrospective exercises have to be careful not to fall into the trap the US did historically. Over arming the planes for the engines that existed at the time.
The larger, heavier FW 190 airframe may not have worked very well with a 1940 DB 601 engine

Same with adding a cannon to early JU 87s. Even with an early Jumo 211 do you want to try sticking a cannon through the prop? and to what purpose?
An MG FF with a 55/60 round drum is certainly not a tank killer. Perhaps you could use that whacking big gun that used 20 X 138 ammo but it weighed 64kg without ammo.