Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hence my opening two sentences.
 
wuzak said:
The Typhoon Mk I with wing leading edge radiators was significantly faster than the Typhoon Mk V with chin radiator. Albeit with a different spec engine.
Click to expand...

Hi

I presume you mean the Tempest as there were only the Typhoon (F18/37 spec. First flight 24 Feb 1940) Mk. Ia (12x.303) and Ib(4x20mm), the Typhoon II became the Tempest (Spec. F10/41) before flying. Tempest V (Sabre II) first flight 2 Sept. 1942, Tempest I (Sabre IV) first flight 24 Feb. 1943, Tempest II (Centaurus IV) first flight 28 Jun. 1943. While the Tempest I was faster there were problems with the Sabre IV so the order for the RAF was changed from Tempest I to Tempest V.
The Centaurus was also tested on the Hawker Tornado aircraft (also spec. F18/37) which was mainly designed for the Vulture engine, this was cancelled. The Tempest took over the Centaurus engine option. Typhoon development was delayed in part by the Battle of Britain and the demands to keep up Hurricane production. I don't think there would have been any possibility of Tempest aircraft before December 1941, whatever scenario is used.

Mike
 
Kevin J said:
then there's cost; why buy the Whirlwind when you can a Warhawk or Mustang for half the price that does the job as well as or better.
Click to expand...
Timing, Timing,Timing.

When the Whirlwind was entering production and first entering squadron service the Warhawk and Mustang pretty much existed as drawings on paper and parts being assembled into prototypes.
 
Shortround6 said:
Timing, Timing,Timing.

When the Whirlwind was entering production and first entering squadron service the Warhawk and Mustang pretty much existed as drawings on paper and parts being assembled into prototypes.
Click to expand...

The first operational Whirlwind unit was No. 263 Squadron and that was declared operational with the Whirlwind on 7 December 1940.

But the P-40 was only a few months behind and was equipping far more than three squadrons only 6 months later.

P-40s first saw combat with the British Commonwealth squadrons of the Desert Air Force in the Middle East and North African campaigns, during June 1941
The Model Bs were received by Chennault at the end of 1941
The 24th Pursuit Group in the Philippines received their first P-40s in early 41 and their first Es well before PH.

Yes the Mustang was over a full year behind and first operational in the RAF in January 42.

That said I still put the Whirlwind third only to the Hornet and Mosquito as the best looking Brit fighters and I think if a better engine was available it would have been a winner. The only possible engine that comes to mind is the Pratt Hornet and that was at the end of its life and probably not worth developing further so that was not a viable option.
 

Also several hundred horsepower short of the Peregrine.
 
MiTasol said:
The first operational Whirlwind unit was No. 263 Squadron and that was declared operational with the Whirlwind on 7 December 1940
Click to expand...

That is true but I believe No 25 squadron got a few in the summer of 1940, granted more in the nature of operational trials than actual operations. I would note that the original statement by another poster said "Warhawk" and not Tomahawk and the Warhawk would not even fly until May 7th 1941 (P-40D)



The Whirlwind didn't need a "better" engine, it neede the one it had sorted out and/or those hydraulic throttle controls gotten rid of.

Take a Spitfire, screw up the intake ducts to lessen the Ram (Vokes filter?), take away the ejector exhausts (or reduce their efficiency substantially ) and fit them with that lousy throttle control (which sometimes had to be "bled" several times in one flight) and see what happens to performance and reliability.
 

Actually in US service every P-40 variant was a Warhawk.
 

I totally agree about that stupid throttle system but it is British so what do you expect. I know virtually nothing about the engine itself except that it was notoriously unreliable and that RR did not adequately support it as they wanted to put all their efforts into the Merlin. Westlands exhaust and intake designs were no doubt the cause of performance losses as well
 
1: Mr Richard Gatling invented a method for disposing of ammunition in a hurry back around 1960. It's known as the Gatling gun. 1939 tech could couple electric or hydraulic drive for faster burst firings, steeper cam for fewer barrels, and round-counters as burst limiters. .30, .50, and .80 (20mm) Gatlings, weighing less than two guns and firing faster than three guns, could increase destructive power considerably.
 

Wrong century.
 
A big problem is not getting rid of the empties, but feeding the ammo to the gun. It doesn't matter what rate the gun will fire at if you can't get the ammo to the gun. And in fighters you have to do it while pulling 4 "G"s or more. What weight of ammo over what distance?
 
Give the Zero and the Ki-43 a sufficiently powerful engine to allow for the weight of hydraulic controls, armour, self sealing fuel tanks, greater firepower and ammunition capacity. Basically I'm suggesting the Nakajima Ki-84.

There's nothing on the Ki-84 or its Nakajima Homare engine that was evolutionarily unlikely or technologically infeasible in the late 1930s to be in frontline service by Dec 1941. Make it a single type (fixing the Ki-84's weak undercarriage and add folding wings) for both the IJN and IJAF to streamline the types and production capacity.
 
Last edited:
Only think wrong with the gatling gun during the WW2 era is, it's a big gun, and has to be installed as a whole system. the magazine fairly close to the gun.

You couldn't mount it in the center of a single engine aircraft, because it couldn't be synchronized .
So even if it was as small as .30 caliber, that would be a pretty big chunk to put in each wing
 


There is nothing "evolutionarily unlikely or technologically infeasible" in Britain making Griffon powered Spitfires in late 1940 or early 1941 either. Or the US making P-47s in 1941 or..............................
 
MiTasol said:
and I doubt it would fit in the nose of a P-38 It would fit in the nose of a P-61 if you stripped the radar out but then your night fighter becomes a day fighter
Click to expand...
It might be able to fit a pair in the belly bulge where the 20mm guns were.

But unless you can figure out how to feed the things (move .50 cal or 20mm belted ammo 3-6 times faster than "normal" WW II guns you aren't going to get very far.
 
Shortround6 said:
There is nothing "evolutionarily unlikely or technologically infeasible" in Britain making Griffon powered Spitfires in late 1940 or early 1941 either. Or the US making P-47s in 1941 or..............................
Click to expand...
Fair point. But what I meant was by late 1941 and into 1942 when Japan was still primarily flying 940 hp, lightweight and fragile Zeros and Oscars, most European and US single engine fighters had the horsepower, firepower, hydraulics and armour that I suggest. For example, in Nov. 1941 the Spitfire Mark V was in service with over 1,450 hp, and the first Griffon-powered Spitfire has just flown with over 1,750 hp. It's not fantasy to propose Japan look at everyone else and find the same.
 
Last edited:
Few, if any, single engine fighters (or even multi engine) were using hydraulic flight controls in 1941-42, it took until early 1944 (?) for the P-38 to get powered ailerons.

The British got 1450hp Merlins in 1941 (and I would really check on that, the Merlin 45 in the MK V had it's boost limit raised several times, and even at 12lbs boost instead of 9lbs it was a few hundred HP short of 1450hp) because the British fuel was a lot better and allowed higher boost.

It is fantasy to propose 1944 engines in 1941.
See how long and how much trouble P & W had with the crankshaft of the R-2800 for instance.
Getting high powered aircraft engines to properly cool, for their bearings to work and and to get the vibrations levels down to an acceptable limit was not easy.

The Homare used the same size (bore and stroke) cylinders as the Sakae engine. If you had built the 18 cylinder Homare engine in 1941 and didn't change the supercharger, or the manifold pressure or the rpm from the Sakae 11 you would have gotten an engine of around 1265hp, not 1800-2000hp.

you needed to change something or several somethings to get the power per liter up the level of the Homare engine of 1944.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Better Dambusters
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GTX
Making better Italian aircraft, 1933~1945
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
tomo pauk
What was it about the black crosses on the wings that made German aircraft the best?
5 6 7
Replies
123
Views
9K
mikewint
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jugman
J
S
How much faster is an aircraft with wooden surface?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register