Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I agree with the idea. I'm curious why the British were so obsessed with the idea.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 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?This is loking a lot like an earlier thread
This is the way it should have been from the beginning....
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
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.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.
AgreedWith 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.
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 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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.
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.
...
revolving around how aircraft could have been made better with technology available at the time around either