Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

[Admiral Beez]

This is loking a lot like an earlier thread

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

Whenever I see a post like this I always assume we're being sent to a thread started by the poster. And yep, true enough.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Ref the quote that 50/50 is the best coolant mix, thats totally dependant on operating conditions such as available pressurisation level
and the degree of cold weather the engine has to survive.

From a thermodynamics perspective there is absolutely nothing better than 100% water (possibly with some very small trace level of additives for surface tension reduction).

30% glycol that was used by many was basically just there as an anti-freeze and nothing more, as with high pressure cooling you dont need its higher boiling point.

50% glycol was needed if you a) Didnt want to run high system pressure or b) wanted to be able to leave the plane outside in the depths of winter (or both).

 

[Zipper730]

I was thinking about two things...

Blackburn Firebrand: How much performance could've been extracted out of the Blackburn Firebrand if it had a wing-design more like the Blackburn B.44?

Lockheed P-38: While the extreme modifications that NACA proposed for the P-38 were something that would have been too extreme from war production requirements. Would it have been too much to have added a tail-cone extension around either the time the P-38J came online (I saw a picture dated December 24, 1941, I'm not sure when tests were completed by the P-38J's came online in '43 if I recall)?

 

[tomo pauk]

I was thinking about two things...

Blackburn Firebrand: How much performance could've been extracted out of the Blackburn Firebrand if it had a wing-design more like the Blackburn B.44?

Blackburn: make other people's designs and everyone is happy.

Lockheed P-38: While the extreme modifications that NACA proposed for the P-38 were something that would have been too extreme from war production requirements. Would it have been too much to have added a tail-cone extension around either the time the P-38J came online (I saw a picture dated December 24, 1941, I'm not sure when tests were completed by the P-38J's came online in '43 if I recall)?

NACA's modifications for P-38s were not that extreme.

 

[Zipper730]

Blackburn: make other people's designs and everyone is happy.

I'm not sure I understand?

NACA's modifications for P-38s were not that extreme.

Well they wanted them to extend the inboard wing chord, reposition the radiator in front of the wings, and add a tail-cone extension to the back of the gondola.

I was told this was something that wouldn't have been allowed at the time...

 

[tomo pauk]

I'm not sure I understand?

The less Blackburn is allowed to design, the better for British war effort. Better have them making other people's designs.

Well they wanted them to extend the inboard wing chord, reposition the radiator in front of the wings, and add a tail-cone extension to the back of the gondola.
I was told this was something that ...

'It wouldn't have been allowed at the time' and 'the extreme modifications' are not synonyms.
Do we have a correspondence between NACA and USAAF with regards to this?

 

[Zipper730]

The less Blackburn is allowed to design, the better for British war effort.

Okay, I gotcha. That said the wing-design for the B.44 was quite an improvement.

'It wouldn't have been allowed at the time' and 'the extreme modifications' are not synonyms.

True enough, but these were not small changes to the airframe. That said, the tail-cone seems fairly small

 

[tomo pauk]

Okay, I gotcha. That said the wing-design for the B.44 was quite an improvement.

For a floatplane fighter - yes, B.44 as a whole was something else.

True enough, but these were not small changes to the airframe. That said, the tail-cone seems fairly small

Wing was otherwise left unchaged, central pod received tailcone and a more slant windscreen. Same tail, fuel tanks, undercarriage, weapon suite.
The changes were much smaller than what Hawker did with Typhoon -> Tempest -> Sea Fury, or Bf 109E ->109F. Or, Re.2000 -> Re.2001 ->Re.2005. LaGG-3 -> La-5 -> La-7? Or Fw 190 -> Ta 152. Or the whole new aircraft the P-63 was against P-39, or P-51H vs. P-51D.

A lot of P-38 potential was probably not realized due not having another source, like the P-51, F4U, A-20, B-17, Bf 109, Ju-87 or P-47 had. Any change will imply that production will drop to zero for several weeks, especially for the already complex aircraft the P-38 was.

 

[Zipper730]

For a floatplane fighter - yes, B.44 as a whole was something else.

Correct: Top speed was 360 mph. Regardless, the wings resemble the Tempest a little bit, though I don't know what the thickness/chord ratios are.

The changes were much smaller than what Hawker did with Typhoon -> Tempest -> Sea Fury, or Bf 109E ->109F. Or, Re.2000 -> Re.2001 ->Re.2005. LaGG-3 -> La-5 -> La-7?

Good point, but the Tempest wasn't considered a variant of the Typhoon. It was essentially viewed as a new design entirely. The La-5 and La-7 were also viewed as different aircraft.

 

[jmcalli2]

I think they finally got one.
The Updraft carb was probably a mistake in hindsight as any air intake on the bottom of the plane and 4-6 feet behind the propeller is going to catch all kinds of crud the prop blast/swirl kicks up, especially when the tail wheel comes up and the prop is only inches from the sod, dirt, sand, coral, etc, etc.

P-40s and Allison P-51s had the air intake on top and only inches behind the prop so their intake of self made grinding compound was much less, However formation take-offs needed care as your buddy's/wingman's plane could sure kick up enough crap to kill your engine.

The Vokes filter was probably overkill but few people had designed air filters for aircraft at that time.
The B-26 sure got some large air intakes when they sized them to fit filters.

Many aircraft had air filters designed in; P-61 (bottom of nacelle right behind the engine), B-24 (that box at the rear opening of each nacelle under the wing), P-51B onward (sides of the chin intake), P-38 (inside the main landing gear bays), P-40D onward (between spinner and exhaust stacks). I'm sure many more did too.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Many aircraft had air filters designed in; P-61 (bottom of nacelle right behind the engine), B-24 (that box at the rear opening of each nacelle under the wing), P-51B onward (sides of the chin intake), P-38 (inside the main landing gear bays), P-40D onward (between spinner and exhaust stacks). I'm sure many more did too.

I believe the P-63 had a built in air filter, adjustable for filtered or non-filtered air from a knob in the cockpit.

 

[Zipper730]

A lot of P-38 potential was probably not realized due not having another source, like the P-51, F4U, A-20, B-17, Bf 109, Ju-87 or P-47 had.

Just to circle back on this: Lockheed only had one factory making P-38's?

While on the matter of different ideas: I'm curious if they could have modified the XP-49 design requirement to include the modifications desired for the P-38?

 

[P-39 Expert]

Just to circle back on this: Lockheed only had one factory making P-38's?

While on the matter of different ideas: I'm curious if they could have modified the XP-42 design requirement to include the modifications desired for the P-38?

?? P-42 was a P-36 with modified cowling and spinner.

 

[tomo pauk]

Just to circle back on this: Lockheed only had one factory making P-38's?

It was a big factory Though, it was supposed to make other aircraft, too.
Once the XP-39 was discovered what it really was by NACA, I'd cancel it all together and have Bell making the P-38s under licence.

While on the matter of different ideas: I'm curious if they could have modified the XP-42 design requirement to include the modifications desired for the P-38?

I'm not sure that there was a relation between XP-42 and P-38.

 

[GrauGeist]

Consolidated received a contract for 2,000 P-38s and manufactured 113 P-38L types at their Nashville (Tennessee) plant before war's end.
The serial numbers were #43-50234 through #43-50303.

 

[jmcalli2]

It was a big factory Though, it was supposed to make other aircraft, too.
Once the XP-39 was discovered what it really was by NACA, I'd cancel it all together and have Bell making the P-38s under licence.

Then Germany may have defeated the USSR! LOL

 

[Conslaw]

It was a big factory Though, it was supposed to make other aircraft, too.
Once the XP-39 was discovered what it really was by NACA, I'd cancel it all together and have Bell making the P-38s under licence.



I'm not sure that there was a relation between XP-42 and P-38.

It not only was supposed to, it did. Lockheed Burbank plant B-1 made P-38 fighters and Hudson bombers. Plant A-1 built 2,750 B-17 bombers. Would Plant A-1 have been better utilized making P-38s? Well, I think you would have needed another plant making V-1710 engines too. AFAIK, all Allison V-1710 engines were built in Allison's Indianapolis Plant. Virtually all of the American high-volume radial engines had multiple plants building each one.

 

[Zipper730]

Uh... I meant XP-49. I corrected the earlier message.

 

[P-39 Expert]

It was a big factory Though, it was supposed to make other aircraft, too.
Once the XP-39 was discovered what it really was by NACA, I'd cancel it all together and have Bell making the P-38s under licence.



I'm not sure that there was a relation between XP-42 and P-38.

What will you use for fighters in 1942? P-38 didn't get into combat until late '42.

 

[tomo pauk]

What will you use for fighters in 1942? P-38 didn't get into combat until late '42.

Wasn't the P-38 earlier in the combat than P-39?