Improve That Design: How Aircraft Could Have Been Made Better

[P-39 Expert]

Yes, but with a significant supercharger advantage and a super lightweight and high lift airframe. Superior power giving superior thrust/weight, and superior L/D at altitude.

All the planes were tested and performance figures adjusted to standard day conditions. Planes in combat with each other all flew in the same atmosphere. The faster plane in standard day conditions will still be the faster plane in hot day conditions.

 

[tyrodtom]

A hit in the reduction gearbox is the same whether it was mounted on the engine or remotely like the P-39. No other reduction gearboxes were armored.

What other aircraft had a remote or separate gearbox like the P-39? P-63 ?

 

[P-39 Expert]

What other aircraft had a remote or separate gearbox like the P-39? P-63 ?

None that i know of.

 

[tyrodtom]

All the planes were tested and performance figures adjusted to standard day conditions. Planes in combat with each other all flew in the same atmosphere. The faster plane in standard day conditions will still be the faster plane in hot day conditions.

You haven't thought that through.
Some aircraft might have a cooling system that is up to keeping the engine cool enough to make full power on a standard day, but not good enough to cool it on a hot day.
The same can be true of the air induction system.

 

[Milosh]

None that i know of.

Piaggio P-119

 

[jmcalli2]

For an American made fighter it would have to be the P-51.



Overclaiming was hardly unique to either the Soviets or to the Eastern Front.

It's sort of a trick question.
It was the P-39 that shot down the greatest number of aircraft for an American built aircraft; the USSR shot down a LOT of German planes with it.

Much of that had to do with the nature of the Eastern Front air war. Lower altitudes, airfields closer to the front lines brought a lot of recon and transport aircraft into range; removing the wing guns to reduce weight and improve roll rate; removing the throttle stops made higher boost levels available at Eastern Front combat altitudes.
(The British noted that the P-39 was faster and more maneuverable than the Me-109 below 17,000 feet in their tests, and faster than the Spitfire (Mk V I think) below 15,000 feet by 18mph, equal at 17,000 feet; the Spitfire out turned the P-39 at all levels and was 55mph faster at 25,000 feet. The P-39 was exactly what the Russians needed.)
But most of the USSR's highest scoring aces scored most of their victories in the P-39, and their totals rivaled the German numbers: 3 over 60, 5 over 50, 18 over 40, and 30 over 30.
The P-39 was the last Luftwaffe kill of WWII, falling to a Me-262.
The P-39 scored the last Luftwaffe plane shot down in WWII, a FW-189.
US pilots score 320 kills in the P-39.

 

[jmcalli2]

In 1942 over New Guinea.

Funny not a mention of it here:


All the incoming Japanese bombers were picked up a few miles out.

At 200 mph a plane travels over 33 miles in ten minutes.
It took early models of P-39s that long to reach 20,000 feet.

That is why on almost every intercept in New Guinea they had to climb up first, then chase. It was rare for the P-39s up and waiting for the bombers as the AVG often was.

EDIT:

I went into the Kindle edition and searched for "warning."

You were right, I was wrong. The P-39s did have SOME warning some of the time that "helped offset the P-39's rate of climb."

My apologies.

 

[jmcalli2]

What's your data source? I always heard the Hellcat and the Spitfire held the top spots.

Spitfire was not an American built aircraft.

Hellcat had the highest kill ratio of planes in US service during WWII.

The all time kill ratio, kills divided by combat losses, is held by the F-15; no other plane has ever shot one down, so it's ratio is infinity.

 

[jmcalli2]

That


That's identified as the IFF in some cutaways.
In the WW2 era radios were usually two different parts, receiver and transmitter, one was much heavier and delicate than the other.
That has the receiver mounted right over the engine, I think that's actually the transmitter, or the IFF.
The receiver were usually mounted on bungee cords, etc., and as far from the engine as they could be located.
I may have the receiver and transmitter confused as to which was heavier, and delicate, but in most WW2 aircraft they were separate assemblies, and sometimes mounted in separate locations.

https://airandspace.si.edu/webimages/collections/full/Pilot's flight manual for P-39 Airacobra.pdf
Manual for the P-39N-0 and N-1

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-39/P-39Q-1_Operating_Instructions.pdf
Manual for the P-39Q

The N manual identifies the one behind the pilot's head as the receiver, the one aft as the transmitter. That manual also includes instructions on the IFF and other radios, but I didn't find anything giving the location of them.

 

[GrauGeist]

Spitfire was not an American built aircraft.

But it's still Allied...

Hellcat had the highest kill ratio of planes in US service during WWII.

Thought that distinction went to the Corsair.

And the tricky part, is to take into consideration the span of service and such.

Types like the SBD had an impressive kill to loss ratio and while I don't have the numbers handy, I beleive the Brewster Buffalo in Finnish service had one of the most impressive kill to loss ratios of any type.

 

[Zipper730]

On the Short Stirling

Short Stirling + 112' wing span - 9000+ lbs of "good ideas" from the air ministry - 3° incidence by undercarriage extension = rather good bomber

I'm not really all that knowledgeable on the Shorts Stirling, but I'm not sure what you mean by the 9000 + pounds of "good ideas" from the Air Ministry.

As for the larger wingspan, I thought they reduced that because of the need to fit it in the hangars?


On the XP-54

I don't believe it was designed as a low altitude aircraft. It was supposed to have higher performance than aircraft then in production and the performance of fighters in development.

It seemed most of the desired area of performance sought was speed and climb. It would appear the turbochargers were added as the design evolved.


On the He 177

I'm curious if the Jumo would have been a better choice than the DB 601? From what I was reading about the German engine design, it seemed the best configured for higher coolant pressure which would make radiators smaller?


On the P-61

If I recall, they wanted eight hours loitering initially, then they superseded this requirement with either the demand eight hours loitering at low power, or two-hours at maximum-continuous, or "merely" two hours at maximum continuous power.

If the eight our requirement was simply replaced with the two-hour maximum continuous power requirement only, they really should have fitted a turbocharger to the design rather than going for the twin-stage supercharger arrangement: It would have given it better range and speed.

Does anybody have any power-curve charts for the P-61C?

 

[Zipper730]

To beat an old drum of mine, putting the big wing on the B-26 was the error. Instead, the AAF, and Navy should have started addressing adapting to faster flying, and landing, aircraft, which was the future.

What would that have entailed starting around 1940-1941?

 

[GrauGeist]

On the XP-54
It seemed most of the desired area of performance sought was speed and climb. It would appear the turbochargers were added as the design evolved.

The XP-54, XP-55 and XP-56 are responses the the Air Corp's 1939 request R-40C for an improved fighter (speed, firepower, etc.) And the XP-54, XP-55 and XP-56 were designed around the P&W X-1800 engine.

The XP-55 ended up with an Allison V-1710, the XP-54 ended up with a Lycoming XH-2460 and the XP-56 ended up with a P&W R-2800.

 

[Milosh]

But it's still Allied...

Thought that distinction went to the Corsair.

And the tricky part, is to take into consideration the span of service and such.

Types like the SBD had an impressive kill to loss ratio and while I don't have the numbers handy, I beleive the Brewster Buffalo in Finnish service had one of the most impressive kill to loss ratios of any type.

I believe that GregP has USN statistics. Maybe he can post then again.

 

[jmcalli2]

But it's still Allied...

Thought that distinction went to the Corsair.

And the tricky part, is to take into consideration the span of service and such.

Types like the SBD had an impressive kill to loss ratio and while I don't have the numbers handy, I beleive the Brewster Buffalo in Finnish service had one of the most impressive kill to loss ratios of any type.

"Still Allied" was NOT THE QUESTION.

 

[SaparotRob]

Did Soviet P-39's ever encounter Finnish Buffaloes?

 

[davparlr]

What would that have entailed starting around 1940-1941?

It should have been anticipated. Upgrades to the B-17 (B-29), and the A-20 (A-26), B-26, P-80. They should update primarily training. Handling increased take-off and landing speeds are not difficult if the operator understands and is familiar the required techniques. In 1940-41 time frame studies and tests should have been made so that training could be implemented quickly. As for the Navy, they should be studying how to improve efficiency and safety of carrier deck operations and how to handle heavier and faster aircraft. Instead they were busy making advance aircraft compatible with aircraft carriers designed to carry biplanes. Of course both services were up to their butt in alligators at the time.
.

 

[wuzak]

On the He 177

I'm curious if the Jumo would have been a better choice than the DB 601? From what I was reading about the German engine design, it seemed the best configured for higher coolant pressure which would make radiators smaller?

Not sure if the Jumo 211 had been developed into a double engine, as the DB 601 was with the DB 606.

Unless you are talking of having the He 177 with 4 separate engines.

 

[swampyankee]

What other aircraft had a remote or separate gearbox like the P-39? P-63 ?

No production airplanes that I've heard of, although quite a few prototypes. They are, however, very common in helicopters.

 

[jmcalli2]

Did Soviet P-39's ever encounter Finnish Buffaloes?

I don't know, but I wondered the same thing!