Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

[Kevin J]

I would like to see that mate.

But since I have no idea where to look, perhaps you could find it for us.

Here's the photo that I saved to my laptop. I'll have a look for the forum next.

 

[Kevin J]

Here's the photo that I saved to my laptop. I'll have a look for the forum next.View attachment 565633

IIRC a Spitfire I with 100 octane and 16 lbs boost did 328 mph at sea level, the Rolls-Royce experimental Whirlwind with the same, 338 mph and with the chin radiators 362 mph which you may or may not agree is plausible. So theoretically, you should get about 385 mph out of it at 15,000 feet similar to an early Typhoon I, but that's it, above that the speed falls off. Max dive speed is also very low at about 400 mph similar to the Beaufighter. The Whirlwind is a day fighter only, not all weather so you can't get a lot of use out of it. You're better off with Beaufighters and Typhoons, and of course Mosquitoes when they eventually enter service in large numbers. Sorry, but I can't find the forum with more detailed stats, all I have is this one saved.
https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,313538.120.html

 

[P-39 Expert]

Westland Whirlwind.

1. Belt magazines feeding from behind and under pilot to nose.
2. Fuel sharing valve between sides and engines.
3. Two stage supercharger on Peregrines for both low and high altitude performance. No, not Merlins, if we go that route we might as well make a Welkin.
4. Larger or different flaps for shorter and slower takeoff and landings.
5. More internal fuel for increased endurance. Consider underwing or chin radiators to free up wing roots for fuel.

The belt feed for the 20mm cannons was a further development that would have come if Whirlwind had stayed in production. Drums held 60 rounds, about half what was needed.

 

[wuzak]

IIRC a Spitfire I with 100 octane and 16 lbs boost did 328 mph at sea level, the Rolls-Royce experimental Whirlwind with the same, 338 mph and with the chin radiators 362 mph which you may or may not agree is plausible. So theoretically, you should get about 385 mph out of it at 15,000 feet similar to an early Typhoon I, but that's it, above that the speed falls off. Max dive speed is also very low at about 400 mph similar to the Beaufighter. The Whirlwind is a day fighter only, not all weather so you can't get a lot of use out of it. You're better off with Beaufighters and Typhoons, and of course Mosquitoes when they eventually enter service in large numbers. Sorry, but I can't find the forum with more detailed stats, all I have is this one saved.
https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,313538.120.html

338mph to 362mph suggests a reduction in drag of 19%.

I call BS.

 

[Kevin J]

The belt feed for the 20mm cannons was a further development that would have come if Whirlwind had stayed in production. Drums held 60 rounds, about half what was needed.

The Whirlwind is a niche long range day fighter and expensive too. It has no development potential.

 

[Kevin J]

The Whirlwind is a niche long range day fighter and expensive too. It has no development potential.

The Seafire LIII went up from 341 mph to 358 mph with drag saving measures. So it's feasible.

 

[Snautzer01]

I thought "missile with a man in it" was the 104 Starfighter nick name?

Funilly enough the Germans called it "erdnagel" meaning ground peg.

 

[Shortround6]

338mph to 362mph suggests a reduction in drag of 19%.

I call BS.

For this to be true the Westland wing leading edge radiators must have been the world's worst. We have other threads with people wanting to yank off chin radiators and replace then with leading edge radiators on other aircraft.
The plane in the picture (photo shopped?) Has ejector exhaust and may pick up some thrust there but one has to believe an awfull lot that such a Whirlwind was faster than a MK XIV Spit using 18lbs of boost.

 

[Zipper730]

Always thought the P-40 radiator arrangement was very good.

I generally agree: The P-40 basically proved to be a good fighter for its time. It's just that the original intent for, what would become the P-40, was the XP-37. So the idea was how to reduce the overlong nose.

 

[Kevin J]

For this to be true the Westland wing leading edge radiators must have been the world's worst. We have other threads with people wanting to yank off chin radiators and replace then with leading edge radiators on other aircraft.
The plane in the picture (photo shopped?) Has ejector exhaust and may pick up some thrust there but one has to believe an awfull lot that such a Whirlwind was faster than a MK XIV Spit using 18lbs of boost.

Didn't the Lightning go faster with chin radiators.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Didn't the Lightning go faster with chin radiators.

Yes, but with a lot more HP.

 

[Kevin J]

Yes, but with a lot more HP.

The chin radiators enabled it to cool the engines better. The Cobra was faster after the draggy turbo inlets were removed. The Spitfire lost 20 mph productionising it. The Spitfire V could be cleaned up by another 35 mph, but only the Seafire used all these mods.

 

[drgondog]

Always thought the P-40 radiator arrangement was very good. Virtually all the radiators and ducting were "hidden" in the area below the engine and ahead of the wing, only adding a very small amount of space to the frontal area. I think that even this could have been reduced by substituting rectangular coolant and oil radiators, or ones similar to those used on the P-40F. Altogether a very neat and compact arrangement. P-40 was one of the few US fighters that met cooling requirements during tests.

Biggest problem with the P-40 was excessive weight.

Under the engine is the Worst location possible from consideration of profile/parasite drag. The P-39/P-51 were much better. Even the Hurricane and Spit and Bf 109F/G were better as the flow around the nose, cockpit and leading edge of the wing is more fully developed with respect to delayed boundary layer build up.

Weight is a function of internal volume required for various fractions (fuel, armament, crew, etc.) as well as the structural design limit and ultimate load factors - for good design. Otherwise take your pick for crappy design. Remember that the P-40 firewall and aft fuselage design originated from the pre-Allison P-36 and Curtiss never figured out a low drag radiator scheme adequate for climb conditions using Meredith Effect concepts of burying the radiator/oil cooler aft of the mid chord of the wing.

The only relief for crappy design is increased horsepower - and lots of it.

 

[wuzak]

Didn't the Lightning go faster with chin radiators.

The P-38 never had chin radiators.

What the P-38J onwards had were core type intercoolers in place of the leading edge intercoolers on earlier models. The P-38J had the same engine as the P-38H, but could run at higher power because the intercooler was superior and allowed higher boost. The second benefit of the chin intercoolers was that the leading edges were freed up for extra fuel tanks, giving greater range.

 

[wuzak]

The Seafire LIII went up from 341 mph to 358 mph with drag saving measures. So it's feasible.

At what altitudes?

Were they the same engine? Did they have the same power?

 

[Reluctant Poster]

A little off topic but I thought of the 24 Calquin. The radial engined version of the Mosquito built in Argentina.
I.Ae. 24 Calquin - Wikipedia

Not the best example of improving a design.

 

[xylstra]

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.

Although yours, and the replies that have followed are entirely focussed on WW2 aircraft design, if you want the perfect example of a truly futuristic and fantastic design, have a look at the 1917 de Bruyere C1 - compare it to say, the RUTAN 'Quickie" from ~65 years later. Truly visionary, and amazing!

 

[Admiral Beez]

One firm that desperately needed some design help was the fighter department of Martin-Baker.

The same country that made the Spitfire made this POS.

 

[Elmas]

One firm that desperately needed some design help was the fighter department of Martin-Baker.

The same country that made the Spitfire made this POS.

View attachment 565695

And certainly they found the help needed...

Photo source: the Internet

 

[Kevin J]

At what altitudes?

Were they the same engine? Did they have the same power?

Absolutely same engine, same height, its all in wwiiaircraftperformance.org.